GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment 

June 27, 2012

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Edward J. Markey

The Honorable Doris O. Matsui

House of Representatives

Subject: Planning and Flexibility Are Key to Effectively Deploying Broadband Conduit through 

Federal Highway Projects

Affordable access to broadband telecommunications is increasingly viewed as vital to the 

country’s economic growth as well as for improving state and local systems for traffic 

management, public safety, and educational goals.1 According to the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), the largest cost element for deploying broadband via fiber optic cable is the 

cost of placement, such as burying the fiber in the ground, rather than the cost of the fiber itself.

Recent legislation introduced in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives would 

require the Secretary of Transportation to require states to install broadband conduit during 

construction for certain federally funded highway projects in compliance with standards 

developed by the Secretary, in coordination with FCC.2

 1

The term broadband commonly refers to high speed Internet access. GAO, Telecommunications: Broadband 

Deployment Is Extensive throughout the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in 

Rural Areas, 

Both the House and Senate bills would 

make conduit available to any requesting broadband service provider for a “charge not to 

exceed a cost-based rate.” Both bills would affect only new construction or highway expansion 

projects that receive federal funding and would not, for example, affect projects limited to road 

resurfacing or general maintenance.

GAO-06-426 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2006).

2

H.R. 1695, 112th Cong. (2011); S. 1939, 112th Cong. (2011). As of our reporting date, both bills were pending in 

Congress.

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

 
Page 2 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

You requested that we examine proposed federal “dig once” policies that would require the 

deployment of broadband conduit in conjunction with federally funded highway construction 

projects as a way to decrease the costs of deploying fiber and eliminate the need for multiple 

excavations.3

Scope and Methodology

This report presents information on (1) the advantages and disadvantages of dig 

once policies and (2) how the broadband deployment experiences of states and localities that 

have implemented dig once policies can inform the consideration of a federal dig once policy.

This information is based on our analysis of documents from and interviews with officials from 

FCC; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); state departments of transportation in 

California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Utah, and Virginia; associations including the 

Telecommunications Industry Association, the National Association of Telecommunications 

Officers and Advisors, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the New America 

Foundation, the California Emerging Technology Fund, and the Massachusetts Broadband 

Institute; providers of broadband service and infrastructure including Google, Verizon, Inyo 

Networks, Sonic.net, Monkeybrains, Slic Network Solutions, and Jaguar Communications; and 

local government agencies in San Francisco, California; Santa Monica, California; Burbank, 

California; and Portland, Oregon. State departments of transportation and local government 

agencies were selected based on recommendations from U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and FCC officials and others we spoke with during the course of our work because of 

their experience with dig once or similar policies. Broadband service and infrastructure providers 

were selected to achieve a diversity of viewpoints, sizes, and company types. Our selection of 

stakeholders was judgmental and thus, responses are not generalizable but provide key insights 

into the experiences of state and local governments and others with experience deploying 

broadband conduit and networks.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2011 through June 2012 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives.

Results in Brief

A federal dig once policy would likely have several advantages, including potentially decreasing 

the frequency of construction on major highways and the cost of installation, while accelerating 

access to and reliability of broadband networks. However, disadvantages—which could be 

exacerbated by a requirement to install conduit as part of certain federally funded highway 

construction—include the potential to install conduit that telecommunications companies might 

not use and to divert highway funding away from highway construction. DOT, FCC, and state 

DOT officials we spoke with supported the concept of a dig once policy, but suggested 

alternative approaches to a federal requirement to install conduit in all covered projects. For 

example, FCC officials expressed support for a federal requirement for evaluation of the 

feasibility and need for conduit during federal highway construction, and state and U.S. DOT 

 3

Throughout this report we refer to “dig once” policies as those broadband deployment policies focused on increasing 

coordination between government agencies and utility companies to decrease the frequency of highway excavation.
Page 3 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

officials expressed support for a federal role in facilitating discussion and best practice sharing 

among states implementing broadband deployment policies.

State and local broadband deployment experiences demonstrate the importance of planning 

and flexibility to effectively implement dig once policies. Officials from states and localities we 

spoke with have adopted various strategies—including establishing formal coordination 

processes between state DOTs and local utility companies—but none required installation of 

conduit as part of all roadway construction. These officials stated that planning and coordination 

with local officials is a critical step to address a number of considerations that should be taken 

into account during implementation—such as the location of access points and the appropriate 

number and size of conduits—to make the conduit installed more useful for telecommunications

companies. In addition, officials from states and telecommunication companies stated that the 

flexibility to take local needs into account in implementing a dig once policy on a project-byproject basis is important and may help to address the potential disadvantages of a federal dig 

once policy.

Background

FCC regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, 

and cable. According to FCC, communications infrastructure has played a critical role in 

increasing opportunities for American innovation, industry, job growth, and international 

competitiveness. As such, FCC works to promote competition, innovation, and investment in 

broadband services and facilities. Broadband access in the U.S. has thus far been driven largely 

by private investment and market innovations and has improved considerably in the last 

decade, but there are critical problems that slow the progress of availability, adoption, and 

utilization of broadband. Such problems include the high cost of deployment in some locations. 

To encourage further broadband deployment, FCC’s National Broadband Plan recommends 

that Congress consider enacting dig once legislation applying to all future federally funded 

highway projects along rights-of-way and that the U.S. DOT make federal financing of highway, 

road, and bridge projects contingent on states and localities allowing joint deployment of 

conduits by qualified parties.4

Federal funding for highways is provided to the states primarily through grant programs

collectively known as the Federal-Aid Highway Program. In a joint federal-state partnership, 

FHWA, a division within the U.S. DOT, administers the Federal-Aid Highway Program and 

distributes most of the funding to the states through annual apportionments established by 

statutory formulas. Once apportioned, the funds are available for obligation for construction, 

reconstruction, and improvement of highways on eligible routes. About 1 million of the nation’s 4 

million miles of roads are eligible for federal aid—including the 161,000-mile National Highway 

System. The responsibility for selecting specific highway projects generally rests with state 

DOTs and local planning organizations, which have discretion in determining how to allocate 

available federal funds among various eligible projects.

 4

FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Washington, D.C.; Mar. 16, 2010). Also see, GAO, 

Telecommunications: National Broadband Plan Reflects the Experiences of Leading Countries, but Implementation 

Will Be Challenging, GAO-10-825 (Washington, D.C.; Sept. 14, 2010) and GAO, Telecommunications: Broadband 

Deployment Plan Should Include Performance Goals and Measures to Guide Federal Investment, GAO-09-924 

(Washington, D.C.; May 12, 2009).
Page 4 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

Fiber optic cables provide extremely fast data transmission speeds and are commonly used for 

long haul transmissions, such as the Internet backbone and middle mile.5

A Federal Dig Once Policy Has Several Potential Advantages and Disadvantages

Fiber optic technology 

converts electronic signals carrying data to light, sends the light through transparent glass or 

plastic fibers about the diameter of a human hair, and converts the light back to electronic form 

for delivery. These fibers are combined into cable of various size diameters, and these cables 

are then commonly buried inside an underground conduit where they are better protected from 

the elements or natural disasters. Depending on traffic demand, fiber optic technology may be 

deployed from the provider’s facilities to a customer’s home or business. In many instances, the 

part of the connection to the customer’s premises, commonly called “the last mile,” may be 

provided over coaxial cable, copper loop, or wireless technology, which may be more costeffective than a total fiber connection. Industry documentation estimates that the expected 

useful life of fiber cables is between 20 and 25 years and that the expected useful life of 

underground conduit is between 25 and 50 years. Current dig once policy proposals are 

focused on increasing middle-mile and backbone broadband infrastructure rather than last-mile 

fiber infrastructure to homes and businesses.

Federal and state officials and industry representatives we spoke with described the potential 

advantages and disadvantages associated with federal dig once policies (see figure 1). While 

the potential advantages apply to dig once policies in general, some potential disadvantages 

may be more or less applicable depending on the specific elements of a federal dig once policy.

Figure 1: Federal and State Officials’ Views about Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of a Federal 

Dig Once Policy

 5

“Long haul transmissions” are transmissions of data over long distances. The infrastructure used for these long haul 

transmissions includes what are commonly called the Internet “backbone” and “middle mile” fiber, and does not 

typically provide broadband service to end users.
Page 5 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

Potential Advantages

• Decrease frequency of construction on major highways. Combining broadband conduit 

installation with highway construction, rather than installing the conduit at a later date, might 

result in fewer construction-related disturbances on federal-aid highways. Decreasing the 

number of times a roadway is under construction should decrease construction-related 

traffic congestion and could potentially increase the life-span of roadways, as frequent 

construction can reduce the integrity of road materials.

• Decrease installation costs. The cost to install underground conduit for broadband deployment 

varies, but installation costs could decrease in some cases if conduit is installed during road 

construction projects because of the ability to share those costs with others involved in the 

road project. One industry official stated that cost savings would depend on the type of work 

being completed for the principal highway project. If the highway project includes, for example, 

digging trenches for water mains or other facilities, then trenching equipment will be on site 

and available and the costs for that equipment would be shared among the broadband, water, 

and other portions of the project. Officials we spoke with noted that the amount of cost savings 

also depends on the type of terrain in which the conduit is installed and the installation method 

required. For example, for a 2011 broadband deployment project through portions of California 

and Nevada, the average contractor bid was $2.18 per linear foot for “plowing”6 in dirt and 

$10.86 per linear foot for “trenching”7 in dirt. For the same project, the average contractor bid 

for installing conduit by “boring”8

• Increase access to and reliability of broadband networks. Officials stated that dig once 

policies could increase access to and reliability of broadband networks at a faster rate than 

current deployment efforts. For example, dig once policies could provide 

telecommunications companies with access to lower cost state-owned conduit in rural areas, 

thus encouraging them to build out their networks in those areas. Further, installing 

additional conduit in areas that already have broadband access could improve network 

reliability by providing redundancy in cases of damage by natural disasters, sabotage, or 

construction. Additionally, officials stated that dig once policies can provide an opportunity to 

was about $22 per linear foot in dirt but about $108 per linear 

foot in areas with solid rock. Taking these factors into consideration, some of the state officials 

we spoke with reported that coordinating road work and underground conduit deployment in 

their states had resulted in cost savings. For instance, officials from one state DOT as well as 

an engineering assessment commissioned for the city of San Francisco estimate that when 

conduit and fiber installation is coordinated with a road or utility project, savings range from 

25-33 percent and are greatest in densely populated areas where the complexity and cost of 

construction is highest. Similarly, Utah DOT, in comparing two rural broadband deployment 

projects, estimated cost savings of roughly 15.5 percent per mile when conduit and fiber were 

installed during a road project rather than being installed independent of a road project.

 6

“Plowing” is a method of installing underground conduit using a plow blade (pulled by a tractor) to provide an 

opening in the ground. The conduit is then placed at the required depth through a feed tube located on the blade. The 

dirt is then placed back over the opening to cover the conduit. Plastics Pipe Institute, Second Edition Handbook of PE 

Pipe, Chapter 14 http://plasticpipe.org/pdf/chapter14.pdf. 

7

“Trenching” is a method of installing underground conduit by which a trench is made using specialized trenching 

equipment. The conduit is then placed in the ground and the trench is backfilled. Plastics Pipe Institute, Second 

Edition Handbook of PE Pipe, Chapter 14 http://plasticpipe.org/pdf/chapter14.pdf. 

8

“Boring” (directional boring) is a trenchless method of installing underground conduit using a steerable horizontal drill 

underneath existing obstacles such as rivers or highways. Plastics Pipe Institute, Second Edition Handbook of PE 

Pipe, Chapter 14 http://plasticpipe.org/pdf/chapter14.pdf. 
Page 6 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

replace aging or aerial infrastructure (such as underground copper infrastructure or fiber 

attached to telephone poles) with underground conduit, which is less susceptible to damage.

• Provide public and economic benefits. Officials we spoke with stated that a dig once or 

similar policy could lead to various public and economic benefits. First, officials from some 

state DOTs, local governments, and industry organizations stated that a dig once policy 

could assist states and localities in developing intelligent transportation9

• Decrease time needed to deploy fiber. Some officials we spoke to stated that, depending on 

implementation, a dig once policy has the potential to decrease the time it takes to deploy 

fiber by reducing the legal and regulatory steps associated with activities such as 

environmental impact studies and obtaining permits in multiple jurisdictions. For instance, if 

companies have access to state-owned conduit, they may be able to deploy fiber through 

that conduit without completing steps such as environmental impact studies, which would 

have been completed at the time of conduit installation.

and public safety 

systems by making conduit available for state and local use. Officials in some localities also 

stated that access to locally owned conduit has reduced local government 

telecommunications costs. Second, some officials stated that a dig once policy might lead to 

decreases in broadband prices and/or increased broadband performance for consumers 

because of potentially increased competition resulting from the availability of conduit open to 

all broadband providers. Third, officials in some localities as well as industry stakeholders 

stated that increased access to broadband benefits existing businesses and could draw new 

businesses to the area, both of which could increase local economic activity.

Potential Disadvantages

• Result in unused conduit. Most officials we spoke with stated that a dig once policy that 

included a federal mandate to install conduit could result in miles of unused conduit and 

wasted funds. For example, while installing conduit for Virginia DOT use in 1998, the agency 

installed spare conduit in a major highway interchange with the intent to lease it to generate 

revenue and to avoid additional construction by telecommunications companies. Officials 

told us that local telecommunications companies were not interested in leasing the conduit 

because their customer base in the area—largely U.S. government agencies and 

contractors—often requires carriers to own their infrastructure rather than lease 

infrastructure. According to Virginia DOT officials, it took 10 years for the agency to generate 

revenue from the extra conduit by selling portions of the conduit system in 2008 and 2011. 

Officials at Caltrans, California’s DOT, told us that the agency had a similar experience with 

conduit installed in the 1990s that remains unused. Further, while some officials stated that 

short pieces of installed conduit can prove to be useful, others were concerned that many 

current highway projects are completed over distances of 1 or 2 miles. A mandate to install 

conduit with federal highway projects could result in small segments of conduit across the 

country that do not connect to other broadband infrastructure. Additionally, industry and 

other officials stated that it may take many years for companies to develop a need for the 

conduit installed as a result of dig once policies. With no active fiber inside the conduit to 

provide incentive for states and companies to protect conduit from road work and other 

hazards, officials were concerned that the conduit might become damaged and unusable.

 9

Intelligent transportation systems use communications, electronics, sensors, and computer hardware and software 

to improve the performance or safety of freeway and transit systems that are designed to improve traffic flow. GAO, 

Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration and Communication Could Enhance the Use of 

Technology to Manage Congestion, GAO-12-308 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2012).
Page 7 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

• Reduce funding available for highway projects. While the costs of conduit installation are 

small relative to the costs of most highway projects, a dig once policy could reduce funding 

available for highway projects at a time when most state DOTs are struggling financially. For 

example, according to Utah DOT officials, broadband conduit and fiber installation 

comprised approximately 7 percent of the total budget for a 19.36-mile road construction 

project in Utah. Unless an alternative funding source were established, the incremental 

costs of conduit installation and conduit management would be borne by either state DOT 

budgets or federal-aid highway funding, thus reducing the amount of funding available for 

the principal mission of the project: highway construction. While leasing programs may help 

states recover these costs, states will be responsible for the costs of conduit installation and 

administration until the conduit becomes used by telecommunications companies. 

Additionally, state DOT and U.S. DOT officials stated that broadband conduit design and 

construction could delay the design and completion of highway projects.

• Increase administrative costs for state DOTs and local governments due to maintenance and 

leasing programs. In addition to the costs of installation, some officials expressed concern 

about the costs to maintain the conduit, maintain a conduit inventory, and administer a leasing 

program, all of which may require additional personnel. In states and localities we spoke to, 

additional personnel have been hired in order to manage leasing programs and maintenance, 

such as might be required under a federal dig once policy. For instance, Utah DOT employs 

one full-time employee in addition to contract support to manage the agency’s fiber optic 

program. Similarly, the city of Santa Monica, California, employs three full time employees to 

manage the technical and marketing aspects of its broadband program, and has begun 

working with a contractor to assist with administering the network.

• Conflict with state and local broadband deployment policies. State and local officials raised 

concerns about a federal dig once policy and cost-based rate requirement affecting states’ 

ability to continue current broadband deployment programs. For example, Utah DOT officials 

expressed concern that a requirement to install conduit and lease it at a cost-based rate 

would prohibit Utah’s current broadband deployment efforts in which the state trades the use 

of excess state-owned conduit and fiber for access to conduit owned by telecommunications 

companies.10

FCC officials stated that the agency has not conducted any studies on dig once policies or 

implemented policies similar to dig once, but that the agency generally supports a federal dig 

once policy. FCC officials further stated that they would support a dig once policy that requires 

an evaluation of the feasibility and need for broadband conduit as a part of the highway 

construction process, rather than a mandate to install conduit in all covered projects. While DOT 

does not currently have any programs or policies that promote dig once or similar broadband 

deployment strategies, DOT has expressed support for developing a dig once policy and noted 

that current regulations allow for fiber optic cable to be run lengthwise along highway rights-ofway.

Similarly, Massachusetts DOT (MassDOT) officials stated concerns that a 

requirement to lease conduit at a cost-based rate would prohibit the state’s current practice 

of charging market-based leasing fees to companies that place fiber infrastructure in the 

state’s right-of-way, resulting in the loss of a revenue stream. U.S. DOT officials also noted 

that some states restrict the use of transportation funding for utilities infrastructure, a 

restriction that may conflict with a federal dig once policy.

11

 10Additional information about this arrangement is provided below.

However, if a federal dig once policy were implemented, DOT officials expressed 

1123 C.F.R. § 1.23(b),(c).
Page 8 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

concern that the agency would be making decisions and setting policy outside of its scope of 

expertise, which is focused on transportation, rather than broadband deployment. Additionally, 

DOT officials stated that a dig once policy applying to federally funded new construction and 

expansion highway projects would likely affect a very small percentage of the nation’s 

roadways. While approximately 30 percent of all federal-aid highway program funding is 

allocated annually toward reconstruction and widening improvement projects, this funding is 

spent on about 4 percent of the National Highway System, or approximately .01 percent of the 

nation’s roads open to public travel.12

Some state DOT officials we contacted suggested that, rather than a federal dig once policy, 

U.S. DOT and FCC should act as facilitators to assist states in creating broadband deployment 

policies. For instance, officials in one state suggested that US DOT facilitate a workshop in 

which state DOTs with established broadband policies share best practices and ideas with other 

states. The U.S. DOT officials we spoke with expressed support for this type of facilitation, 

rather than legislation linking federal highway funding to deployment of broadband conduit. On 

June 14, 2012, the President issued Executive Order 13616,

 

13

• Implement a flexible set of best practices that can accommodate changes in broadband 

technology and minimize excavations consistent with competitive broadband deployment.

 “Accelerating Broadband 

Infrastructure Deployment,” that, among other activities, requires that the U.S. DOT do the 

following:

• Work with state and local governments to help them develop and implement best practices 

on establishing dig once requirements, effectively using private investment in state 

intelligent transportation infrastructure, and other related activities.

Broadband Deployment Experiences Illustrate the Benefits of 

Planning and Flexibility

Officials from states and localities we spoke with have had a variety of broadband deployment 

experiences and have adopted various strategies to promote broadband deployment and 

infrastructure. Some have implemented dig once policies that encourage coordination between 

transportation agencies and utility companies to prevent additional road construction, but we did 

not identify any states or localities that have dig once policies that require installation of conduit 

as part of any road construction project. State and local strategies include formal coordination 

policies between state DOTs and utility companies, a system of trading the use of state-owned 

conduit for use of conduit owned by telecommunications companies, and city-owned fiber optic 

networks, among others. For example:

• Michigan DOT has implemented a formal coordination process in which the DOT provides 

its future road work plans to local utility companies, giving the companies an opportunity to 

complete work while the DOT has roads under construction.

 12DOT also noted that, when possible, state and local agencies allow utilities to install facilities, such as conduit, 

outside of the roadway, which would negate most of the cost savings of installing conduit at the same time as road 

construction.

13 77 Fed. Reg. 36903 (June 20, 2012).
Page 9 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

• Similarly, the city of San Francisco coordinates with local utility companies through its joint 

trenching policy, which allows utility companies to install conduit or perform maintenance 

either prior to or during roadway reconstruction and restoration. The policy includes a 5-year 

moratorium on excavating streets that have been reconstructed, repaved, or resurfaced.

• Utah DOT and Virginia DOT leverage private companies’ assets to decrease the cost of 

expanding their state-owned fiber optic networks, which support their intelligent 

transportation systems, through a fiber optic resource sharing program and conduit trade 

system. Virginia’s DOT allows private companies to install conduit and/or fiber in its limited 

access right-of-way, where it does not typically allow utility installations, in exchange for the 

use of company-owned conduit and/or fiber in areas where the state does not have 

broadband infrastructure. Utah DOT installs conduit for its own network—sometimes 

coordinating conduit installation with road construction—and allows private companies to 

use excess state-owned conduit in exchange for the use of company-owned conduit in 

areas where the state does not have broadband infrastructure.

• MassDOT views its highway right-of-way as an asset developed by the state and, 

correspondingly, charges telecommunications companies leasing fees for using it. 

Companies with underground fiber networks provide MassDOT with fiber or conduit space, 

and then the value of the fiber or conduit space is deducted from the company’s leasing fee.

• Both Santa Monica and Burbank have city-owned fiber optic networks. The city of Burbank 

has deployed its network primarily through existing electrical conduit and generates nominal 

revenue for Burbank Water and Power by leasing excess capacity to local businesses. 

Santa Monica built its fiber optic network to reduce the city’s costs associated with buying 

Internet service from a telecommunications company, enhance telecommunications 

services, and promote economic development. The city generates revenue through leasing 

services to local businesses to support network operations and fund community programs.

Planning and Flexibility Are Key to Successfully Implementing Dig Once Policies

State, local, and industry officials we contacted who have experience deploying broadband 

networks stated that planning is an important aspect of ensuring that a broadband deployment 

project is successful. For example, officials planned Digital 395, a 583-mile broadband 

deployment project located primarily along highway 395 in California and Nevada, for more than 

2 years prior to breaking ground to install conduit. Planning steps included identifying levels of 

broadband service in the deployment area and the number of households and businesses 

located in the proposed service area. Additionally, recent federal programs that promote 

broadband deployment14

Officials stated that coordination between states and local communities is an important part of 

planning the deployment of broadband networks because local communities have a better 

have required grant and loan applicants to demonstrate planning and 

goal setting, including how the project will create sustainable broadband adoption in the target 

area, a project timeline that establishes key milestones for the implementation of the project, 

and potential challenges that could pose delays, among other information.

 14The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 established the Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program, administered by the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration to facilitate broadband access to unserved and underserved areas in the United States. Pub. L. No. 

111-5, § 6001 (Feb. 17, 2009). Additionally, the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service established the 

Broadband Initiatives Program to make loans and award grants for broadband infrastructure projects in rural areas.
Page 10 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

understanding of their broadband needs than states or the federal government and working with 

local officials helps ensure that local requirements are met by the state.15

Officials stated that planning, including coordination with local officials, may help address several 

implementation considerations that should be taken into account for conduit installed under a dig 

once policy to be useful and appealing to telecommunications companies. Leaving these 

considerations unaddressed may result in conduit that is poorly designed or managed. State DOT 

and other officials stated that if officials were tasked with implementation of a dig once policy, they 

should consider conduit access, installation, management, maintenance, and cost issues, 

including:

Additionally, a better 

understanding of the broadband needs in an area should help state DOTs determine which 

highway projects should include conduit. For example, some officials stated that interstate 

highways in the northeast U.S. typically have enough fiber optic infrastructure and that more 

conduit is not needed. Additionally, some areas may not need new conduit because there are 

alternative deployment methods. For example, Google officials stated that in a recent fiber 

deployment project in Kansas City, Kansas, Google deployed fiber optic cables through existing 

municipally owned utility conduit, so there was little need for additional conduit during the 

deployment process.

• The location of access points along the conduit. To allow for maintenance and the 

connection of customers to the fiber optic cable, there should be points along conduit at 

which fiber optic cable can be installed in the conduit and accessed in the future.

• The number and size of conduits. The number of conduits and size of conduit affect the 

number and strand count of fiber optic cables that can be installed in a single conduit or a 

bank of conduit. For example, if a state installs four 1-inch conduits, it likely means that the 

maximum amount of fiber optic cable the conduits can house is four half-inch fiber optic 

cables.

• Security of conduit and access points. Telecommunications officials stated that companies 

may not want to share conduit and access points with other companies because of security 

and safety concerns about their fiber optic cables being damaged by another party. 

Additionally, an official suggested that the creation of a qualified vendor list is needed to 

control who can access the conduit to pull fiber optic cable, perform maintenance, and 

prevent damage as a result of negligence.

• The conduit allocation process. The allocation of conduit between public and private entities 

needs to be managed to effectively give companies access to the conduit and to prevent 

misuse of the conduit. For example, some officials were concerned that large companies 

might be allowed to lease all excess conduit space in order to eliminate competition.

• A conduit map. A high-quality map or database displaying the location, number, and size of

conduits is necessary for telecommunications companies to efficiently locate and access the 

conduit.

 15U.S. DOT also noted that local agencies currently have the responsibility for determining when, where, and under 

which conditions utilities are allowed to occupy all public rights-of-way, including those on roadways. As such, these 

local agencies have the controls and authority to require funding and installation of conduit for broadband services if 

they determine there is a need.
Page 11 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

• The management of right-of-way access. Depending on how a policy is implemented, stateowned conduit could make the permitting and coordination process for accessing rights-ofway in different jurisdictions easier—by requiring that companies only coordinate with the 

state DOT—or more difficult—by requiring that companies coordinate with all the 

jurisdictions the conduit crosses through.

• The designation of conduit maintenance responsibilities. The clear designation of 

maintenance responsibilities is important because maintenance can become complicated if 

conduit or fiber is damaged by an outside party, natural disaster, or another 

telecommunications company.

• Setting conduit access rates. The cost to lease conduit from the state must be reasonable 

and, if the conduit is leased at a cost-based rate, states should clearly delineate how costs 

would be allocated among users. For example, states should decide if the access rates will 

differ depending on the number of companies that are colocated in conduit. If one company 

has to bear all of the costs because it is the only company using the conduit, versus three 

companies sharing the cost of the conduit, telecommunications companies may be hesitant 

to be the first to lease conduit.

In addition to planning, state and telecommunications company officials stated that a dig once 

policy should allow for flexibility based on the needs of states and localities. Officials stated that 

flexibility is beneficial when deploying broadband infrastructure because different areas of the 

country have different needs, so conduit installation should be considered on a project-by-project 

basis. For example, some officials stated that it does not make sense to install conduit in a 5-mile 

stretch of road that is not close to other telecommunications infrastructure or if no work is planned 

on successive lengths of road in the near future. Additionally, it may be cost prohibitive to install 

conduit in some areas of the country where terrain is challenging. For example, the average 

contractor bid for boring in areas of solid rock was about five times the cost of directional boring in 

areas with mostly dirt for a 2011 broadband deployment project through portions of California and 

Nevada. Similarly, in rural areas, aerial installation allows for more flexibility to connect newly built 

homes to fiber optic cables than underground conduit, according to an official at a 

telecommunications company that specializes in providing broadband to rural areas. However, 

officials told us that certain areas or projects would benefit greatly from pre-installed conduit, 

including bridges, interstate highway crossings, and highway interchanges. Officials stated that 

such projects can be difficult, costly, and even dangerous places to install conduit so preexisting 

conduit could facilitate broadband deployment to areas surrounding such projects.

According to some state, local, and telecommunications officials, planning and flexibility in a dig 

once policy may help address potential disadvantages by, for example, accommodating states’ 

and localities’ existing broadband deployment programs, decreasing the likelihood of installing 

conduit that will never be used, and giving states the ability to set their own conduit access 

rates. For example, officials in one locality said they would like to continue to generate revenue 

from leasing excess capacity from the city-owned network to private businesses, but they are 

unsure how a national policy would affect local policy. Flexibility in a federal policy could also 

give states the ability to set their own conduit-leasing rates, within reason. According to some 

state and industry officials, state DOTs should be able to charge an amount greater than a costbased rate to fund future conduit expansion and to ensure that costs associated with conduit 

installation and administration are fully recovered.
Page 12 GAO- 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to FCC and U.S. DOT for comment. DOT had no comments. 

FCC provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or 

flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 

may be found on the last page of this report. Additionally, Sara Vermillion, Assistant Director; 

Laura Erion; Colin Fallon; Katie Hamer; and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to this 

report.

Susan Fleming

Director

Physical Infrastructure Issues

(541089)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.