When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report
2023
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fiber Broadband Association partnered with Cartesian to research the cost of ber deployment and provide insight on
how costs are evolving over time.
Cartesian received input to this study from across the industry and nation. Respondents spanned the ber construction
ecosystem from traditional providers to contractors and represent 35 states in total based on primary deployment locations.
Information was gathered via phone interviews and online survey in October and November 2023.
While no two deployment projects are alike, we found many common themes.
The cost per foot of aerial deployment is less than half that of underground
Typical costs ranged from $11 to $24 per foot for underground deployment, and $4 to $9 per foot for aerial deployment. The
median cost of deploying ber underground was over twice the median cost of deploying ber aerially at $16.25 and $6.49
respectively.
Labor accounts for over two-thirds of build costs
These costs were largely driven by labor, which comprised 50 – 90% of total cost, leaving materials to contribute 10% - 50%.
The average split was 73% labor, 27% materials for underground construction, and 67% labor, 33% materials for aerial
construction.
Population density has a large impact on the cost per foot of underground builds
Costs also related to population density; median costs increased with density. Extremely rural areas reported the lowest
median underground cost ($12.50/ft), while urban areas reported the highest median ($23.25/ft), almost double that of the
most rural scenarios. This generally held true for aerial deployments also, with a median of $5.00/ft for rural and $6.54/ft for
urban areas.
Building in rocky areas costs twice as much as laying ber in soft earth
Underground costs are also inuenced by terrain; the denser and harder a terrain is, the more costly it becomes to dig under
the surface. This was evidenced in the results, as underground deployment had a median cost of $10/ft in soft earth, but
twice that in rocky terrain at $20/ft.
Where available, a choice of construction method can reduce cost
There are a variety of construction methods for underground build, each occupying its own niche. Trenching had the lowest
reported median cost at $12/ft and plowing the highest median cost at $17/ft. Directional boring fell in the middle at a median
of $15.10/ft, but also had the highest reported costs of any method.
The Western states had the highest cost ranges
Deployment costs varied by region for both aerial and underground methods, although regional dierences tended to be
more pronounced for underground construction. For both methods, the West had the highest typical costs, and the Northeast
had the lowest typical costs.
Anticipated cost increases expected to cool slightly
While 46% of respondents reported “signicant” cost increases in 2023 (greater than 10%), only 24% expect the same in
2024. Most respondents (59%) predict a slight price increase (less than 10%) and 13% expect costs to remain the same.
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Section 1: Fiber Year in Review........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Section 2: Fiber Deployment Costs .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Section 3: Cost Trends ................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................24
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
4
INTRODUCTION
The US is in the midst of one of the largest infrastructure programs ever undertaken. Broadband providers are replacing
legacy networks with ber and reaching new communities through footprint expansion. Over half of US households now have
access to ber broadband and providers have committed to delivering millions more ber homes in the coming years.
Alongside this commercial activity, federal and state funding programs are helping to extend the reach of ber deployment.
The largest of these – the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program – provides $42.45B to deliver reliable,
high-speed broadband to every American.
With national focus on closing the digital divide and billions of federal dollars being directed towards ber deployment,
understanding the cost of building networks is critical now more than ever. Understanding deployment costs will help
eciently direct BEAD dollars and other funding sources to connect the communities most in need. However, until now, the
industry has lacked a dedicated resource to assessing how costs vary in dierent environments and change over time.
Recognizing this research gap, the Fiber Broadband Association (FBA), in partnership with Cartesian, set out to understand
the range of costs facing providers today and how these are expected to change. This study provides the industry with a
comprehensive assessment on the state of ber in the US. In doing so, we focus on the cost of deployment, which has long
dictated where and when broadband infrastructure is built.
In this report, we summarize the ber deployment landscape in 2023, present ndings from our annual ber deployment
study, and look ahead to 2024 for developments in the industry.
Section 1
looks at this past year for ber deployment through deployment numbers, trends, industry news, and BEAD
updates.
Section 2 provides an overview of the factors that impact ber deployment costs and details ndings from this year’s
Fiber Deployment Cost Study.
Section 3 reviews cost trends based on ndings from the Fiber Deployment Cost Study and summarizes expectations for
the coming year.
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
5
SECTION 1: FIBER YEAR IN REVIEW
46% of locations in the US now serviceable by ber
Fiber deployment had another record year in 2023. According to the FCC’s Broadband Data Map, we estimate that roughly
52M or 46% of locations in the US are now serviceable by ber as of June 2023. This includes 7.6M additional locations from
last June, a 6-percentage point (pp) YoY increase in coverage.
Providers are now expanding ber to new locations faster than ever, as evidenced by the notable uptick in deployments since
2021. This comes after a temporary slowdown starting around 2020, in large part due to COVID-related disruptions.
At a household level, the gures are even more impressive. According to RVA LLC’s recent study, ber passed 69M unique
homes as of Q3 2023, equivalent to 51.5% of US households
1
. The FCC’s location data lags this household view as it doesn’t
reect the full contribution of multi-dwelling units (MDUs) to the total amount
2
.
Fiber deployment keeps momentum this year
Fiber deployment in 2023 kept pace with the record-setting levels of 2022; households passed increased by 13% in 2023,
which mirrors YoY growth from 2021 - 2022
3
. The 2023 deployment gures even beat earlier expectations, despite some
national providers slowing down their deployments in response to economic headwinds.
Although high ination and interest rates may have dampened the outlook early in 2023, it did not deter deployment on a
broad scale. Thanks in part to excess materials inventory acquired during the COVID-19 pandemic, many larger providers
were shielded from some price uctuations.
1
2
The FCC Broadband Data Map treats each MDU – –
3
Fiber Access in the US by Share of Locations
(2015 – 2023)
% of Locations Serviceable by Fiber
BDC
June June June June June June June June June
COVID-19
Lockdowns
15.3%
16.8%
21.2%
24.4%
28.5%
30.2%
32.1%
39.5%
45.6%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Form 477
Fig 1.1
Source: FCC Form 477 and Broadband Data Collection (BDC) lings, accessed 11/2023
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
6
2023 also showed that providers aren’t waiting for BEAD money to expand their networks. Private capital is continuing to
invest in ber, which is viewed as an “infrastructure class” investment. There’s also plenty of other government funding
currently accessible, including the American Rescue Plan Act’s (ARPA) Capital Projects Fund and Rural Digital Opportunity
Fund (RDOF). ARPA dollars must be obligated by the end of this year, and many states are keen on getting those funds out
the door before BEAD.
More consumers are seeing increased options when it comes to ber
The number of locations in the US with access to multiple ber providers has tripled in recent years, at a rate faster than
overall access. As of June 2023, 6% of locations are passed by at least two ber providers. In contrast, until recently ber
deployments rarely overlapped; in 2020, the percentage of locations with more than one ber option stood at 2.1%.
The increased ber competition is likely due to two causes: overbuilder entrants and legacy network upgrades. Both models
signal ber’s long-term viability: overbuilders are nding it lucrative to take on incumbents in some markets and legacy
providers are likely deploying ber to remain competitive in their footprints.
Everyone is getting in on ber
We didn’t get to where we are today—over half of US households serviceable by ber— without collective eorts across the
broadband industry to build ber.
While ILECs led the way in the early years of deploying ber, broadband providers of all types are now getting in on the action.
In recent years we’ve seen diversication in the types of companies building ber, including cable operators, municipalities,
and electric cooperatives in addition to traditional telcos. This is in part due to increased capital, as mentioned above, and in
response to growing consumer demand for faster and more reliable speeds.
Subscriber challenges and heightened competition have led some cable operators to start building ber. It’s increasingly
common for cable companies to upgrade their HFC networks with ber and to deliver FTTH in greeneld areas. As cable
companies see revenue and/or subscriber success with ber, we can expect the ber trend to continue.
Form 477 BDC
Source: FCC Form 477 and Broadband Data Collection (BDC) lings, accessed
11/
2023
0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
1.1
%
1.8%
2.1%
3.2%
3.6%
6.0%
June June June June June June June June June
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Fiber Access in the US by Share of Locations with
2+ Providers (2015
– 2023)
% of Locations Serviceable by 2+ Fiber Providers
Fig 1.2
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
7
Despite regulatory obstacles in some states, municipal networks are gaining popularity. Cities are creating broadband
networks to attract and retain residents, oftentimes stepping up where large providers have neglected to build. With the IIJA,
municipalities also have a seat at the table to apply for BEAD and tap into federal funding opportunities.
Electric cooperatives are also nding success with ber. Since entering the market, rural cooperatives are one of the fastest
growing segments of broadband providers
4
. They are well positioned to deliver ber via their existing infrastructure and won
big with recent RDOF funding, giving them the nancial boost to rapidly grow in passings. Perhaps most importantly, they’re
leading the way in bringing connectivity to the rural communities they operate in.
Providers turn to expanding ber access in more rural areas
Fiber deployment was traditionally associated with more densely populated areas which yield better returns thanks to lower
costs per passing. This can be seen in the chart below: currently, 62% of urban locations have access to ber, which is 16pp
higher than the national average (46%).
While rural areas still trail behind with ber access, great strides have been made in recent years. As urban geographies have
lled out with ber, areas with less competition are becoming more attractive. The COVID-19 pandemic also drew national
attention to gaps in broadband access and added renewed focus—and funding— to bringing ber broadband to rural
communities. Since June 2021, the pace of ber deployment in rural areas has increased rapidly, raising access from 21% to
31% in June 2023. Despite this progress, rural coverage is still half that of urban. We can expect to see deployment strategies
continue to make eorts to reduce this gap in the coming years.
4
Fiber Deployments by Provider Type (2016 – 2023)
Total Fiber Locations Passed
1
1. Includes double passings
2. Fluctuations in gures between years are likely due to quality issues in historical reported coverage.
Source: FCC Form 477 and Broadband Data Collection (BDC) lings, accessed 11/2023
MunicipalityVerizon
2
AT&T Electric CooperativeOther Telco MSO
June
2016
June
2017
June
2018
June
2019
June
2020
June
2021
June
2022
June
2023
7.9M
8.1M 8.2M 8.1M 8.3M
8.4M
8.3M
8.8M
0.8M
4.4M
6.9M
9.5M
9.7M
10.8M
12.4M
14.5M
8.9M
10.2M
11.2M
13.7M
14.6M
14.1M
20.1M
23.5M
3.8M
2.6M
3.9
M
1.9M
2.2M
2.6M
3.1M
2.1M
2.4M
19.9M
25.2M
29.3M
34.7M
36.4M
41.1M
46.2M
54.1M
Form 477 BDC
Fig 1.3
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
8
ILECs continued to lead the way on new ber passings
In the midst of aggressive multi-year ber rollout targets, some providers scaled back their deployment plans for 2023 while
others made steady gains towards their longer-term goals.
AT&T leads the way among those making large investments in ber, tracking towards 30M passings (residential and business)
by the end of 2025. AT&T has been the biggest driver of ber deployments in 2023 with 2.2M new consumer locations, despite
management lowering expectations for the year
5
. AT&T reported strong Q3 results, citing 24M total passings (20.7M
consumer, 3.3M business)
6
.
Verizon, one of the early movers in the ber space, has a target of 18M household passings by 2025
7
. If Verizon ends the year
with the planned new 500K Fios locations, that leaves ~400K - 500K additional passings by 2025 to meet their goal
8
. Even
with aggressive FWA plans, Verizon remains focused on markets where they can upgrade their infrastructure with ber.
Other large providers reconsider their ber rollout strategy for the coming years
Frontier, who made headlines in January for being the rst major ISP to launch network-wide 5 Gig speeds, projected 1.3M
new passings by year-end 2023, a 300K reduction from their original 2023 expectations
9
. This leaves 3.5M on the table to build
over this year and next to hit their goal of 10M passings by 2025
10
.
Last year Altice set a plan to reach 6.5M homes by the end of 2025 across its Optimum and Suddenlink footprints
11
. The
company slowed its pace of new ber locations in 2023 to 600K (down from 900K) and is evaluating at what pace they want
5
AT&T Q4 2022 Earnings Transcript
6
7
8
Fierce Telecom
9
10
11
1. Rural is <100 locations per square mile, suburban is 101 – 2500 locations per square mile, urban is 2500+ locations per square mile
Source: FCC Form 477 and Broadband Data Collection (BDC) lings, accessed
11/
2023
9%
10%
13%
14%
17%
19%
21%
26%
31%
17%
19%
24%
28%
33%
34%
36%
43%
49%
29%
32%
38%
46%
50%
52%
52%
56%
62
%
June
2015
June
2016
June
2017
June
2018
June
2019
June
2020
June
2021
June
2022
June
2023
Rural Suburban Urban
Fiber Coverage by Population Density
1
(2015 – 2023)
Share of Total Locations with Fiber Access
Fig 1.4
Form 477 BDC
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
9
to continue their ber strategy for 2024 and beyond
12
. As part of the revised strategy, FTTP upgrades will largely be focused
on its tri-state urban environments.
Lumen reset its growth plans in June 2023 under new leadership, stating it would add 1M new locations each year starting in
2025 until reaching 7.4M locations by the end of 2027
13
. Lumen expects to build ber to 500K locations by the end of 2023 to
reach 3.6M total locations, with another 500K passings planned for 2024
14
. This 2024 estimate is revised down from previous
projections by Lumen, noting the high cost of capital, but it’s unclear if Lumen will update longer term plans.
Regional providers continued to invest in ber
Consolidated Communications slowed its build pace in 2023, stalling on its plan to upgrade 1.6M homes with ber and
moving away from a 2026 goal to complete its ber upgrade. However, they remain invested in ber says their CEO, leaning
on ber to boost subscribers and revenue
15
. They reported reaching around half of their addressable market with ber by the
end of 2023. TDS Telecom set a target of 175K homes to be passed with ber in 2023, up from 133K in 2022. In Q3, TDS
revised 2023 passings to 200K due to better-than-expected year-to-date results. Their long-term target remains 1.2M homes
by 2026
16
, nearly two-thirds of which they have now passed.
12
13
14
15
16
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
10
States collaborated with their broadband communities on NTIA submissions
2023 was a big year for states in preparing for BEAD. States started the year building a Five-Year Action Plan. The NTIA
announced nal funding allocations in June of 2023, divvying up the program’s $42.45B between the 56 states and territories.
The notice of available funding amounts issued in June started a 180-day timer for states to submit their Initial Proposals by
late December
17
. Initial Proposals required states to seek collaboration in developing their BEAD strategies, and many ocials
busied themselves this year with listening tours and other forms of community engagement.
States are now turning their attention to the competitive subgrantee process, which can be initiated after NTIA approval on
Initial Proposals and initial funding requests (20% of total funds). The outcome of the selection process, along with additional
local coordination eorts, will be documented in states’ Final Proposals, which are due in late 2024/early 2025.
NTIA considered adjustments to BEAD requirements amid industry concern
The BEAD program also underwent some revisions in 2023. In November, the NTIA modied its letter of credit (LOC)
requirement after facing pushback that the provision could prevent smaller ISPs from participating in BEAD. The rule required
applicants to hold 25% of the grant amount in a cash account, evidenced by a LOC from a traditional bank. With the newly
published waiver, applicants now have alternative nancing options that provide more exibility in where they can get a LOC
from and the obligated amount
18
.
NTIA also entertained discussions on the Build America Buy America (“BABA”) Act stipulations tied to federally funded
programs including BEAD. BABA requires that items are manufactured in America and at least 55% of components are
sourced in America
19
. The broadband industry expressed concerns about meeting these requirements, particularly for
electronics. In response, the NTIA proposed a BABA waiver that relaxed requirements around electronics sourcing while still
promoting onshore assembly
20
. In the meantime, many key US manufacturers have ramped up domestic production to meet
the Buy America requirements, including Adtran, CommScope, Corning, and Nokia
21
.
The broadband industry started evaluating BEAD grants
While states are preparing their subgrantee selection processes, many service providers are already weighing their options
for BEAD. In speaking with providers, we found many have started to evaluate BEAD opportunities in and near their footprints,
considering both the costs and the capacity to deliver.
From a capacity point of view, many players anticipate a shortage in skilled labor once subgrant awards are made. As part of
the eort to address the skills gap and worker shortage, Fiber Broadband Association’s OpTIC Path Program is currently
engaged with 40 states, 44 service providers, and 70 community colleges, and graduated 209 participants in 2023. That gure
is expected to grow substantially as more places adopt and deliver OpTIC Path nationwide.
17
18
19
20
21
Fierce Telecom
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
11
SECTION 2: FIBER DEPLOYMENT COSTS
In this section we review the ndings of the 2023 study on ber deployment costs.
Despite billions of dollars of investment in ber networks, nding reliable and accurate cost data can be challenging.
Furthermore, there is limited insight available on how costs are evolving over time.
To address these knowledge gaps, the Fiber Broadband Association commissioned Cartesian to conduct research across the
industry. Responses were collected via phone interviews and online survey in October and November 2023.
Cartesian received input from across the industry and nation. Respondents spanned the ber construction ecosystem from
traditional providers to contractors and represent 35 states in total based on primary deployment locations. The results from
our study provide a snapshot of deployment costs in dierent scenarios. The reported costs may not be representative of all
providers’ costs or circumstances and should not be interpreted as such.
The ber deployment study looks at a range of deployment scenarios
Planning this study required care as ber deployment costs are dependent on many factors and, as no two deployments are
ever the same, costs can vary widely between jobs.
To enable meaningful comparison within the study, each participant was asked to characterize their build environment and
primary construction method; costs for labor and materials were reported as unit costs (cost per foot); and costs for items
such as engineering, design, permitting, and make-ready were excluded from these metrics.
Although not the focus of this study, respondents estimated that engineering, when sourced externally, generally ends up
around 2% - 10% of total project cost.
Permitting can vary, depending on who holds the right of way. For those that paid for permits, respondents reported costs
around 10% of the overall project.
Network Operators
& Service Providers
Prime Contractors
Municipal Broadband
Providers
Utility / Electric
Cooperatives
Subcontractors
States RepresentedRespondent Types
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
12
The cost per foot of aerial deployment is less than half that of underground
The study compared the cost of aerial and underground construction methods. Most respondents (70%) used a combination
of both, with 25% reporting underground-only and only 5% being exclusively aerial.
From a cost point of view, the unit cost of underground construction is signicantly higher than aerial. The median cost for
underground deployments within the study was $16.25/ft versus $6.49/ft for aerial. In both cases – aerial and underground
– there was a wide cost range, with costs at the 25th percentile being less than half those of the 75th percentile. We explore
reasons for the wide range of costs later in this report.
Hanging Fiber
Aerial
Trenching
Underground
Microtrenching
Underground
Plowing
Underground
Directional Boring
Underground
Survey
Focus
Survey
Focus
Location
Infrastructure Availability
Topography / Terrain
Housing Density
Local Regulations & Requirements
Survey
Focus
Survey
Focus
Survey
Focus
Survey
Focus
Labor
Materials
Permitting
Make Ready Costs
Engineering & Design
Survey
Focus
Survey
Focus
The actual cost components that make
up total deployment cost
Survey
Focus
Survey
Focus
Survey
Focus
Technique used for deploying ber, largely
inuenced by build environment
Physical features, natural and humanmade,
of the area for ber deployment
Construction MethodBuild Environment Input Costs
Deployment Cost Drivers
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Deployment Cost Interquartile Ranges
Cost per Foot, Labor and Materials Only
Mean UG
CPF: $18.36
25th Percentile 50th Percentile 75th Percentile
Mean Aerial
CPF: $7.70
$11.30
$16.25
$24.13
$4.47
$6.49
$9.25
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Fig 2.1
Underground (UG) Aerial
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
13
Interviewees’ choice of using underground or aerial construction was driven by factors including access to poles, upfront and
ongoing costs, the risk of cable breaks, and speed of deployment.
Underground cabling was viewed as more resilient and better protected against accidental damage and adverse weather
events such as tornados, high winds, ice storms, and forest res. The option to dig is also almost always available, whereas
aerial requires poles.
Where poles are available and access can be secured on reasonable terms, the economics of aerial deployment can be
attractive. Aerial also benets from being less intrusive than underground construction and enables faster roll-out.
For entities that own their own poles, including municipals and electric co-ops, re-use of this infrastructure has many
advantages. Firms seeking access to others’ poles noted that make-ready costs can vary signicantly, and in some cases may
make underground a better option. Study participants estimated that make-ready costs can add $5 to $6 per foot to the unit
costs; other estimates ranged from $500 to $5,000 per pole depending on the amount of rework required, for example, to
reposition power lines.
It’s also worth noting that operating expenses tend to be higher for aerial ber due to more frequent cable breaks. One
provider noted that these additional costs lead to underground and aerial costs being comparable when viewed on a longer-
term, total cost basis. Because of this, and the customer service issues related to cable breaks, this provider favored
underground deployment.
Costs per home passed were mostly between $700 and $2700
In addition to analyzing unit costs for construction, we also investigated the cost per passing in aerial and underground
builds.
The reported cost per home passed (CPHP) for underground deployments ranged from $1.6K to $2.6K (25
th
to 75
th
percentile
range); the more expensive passings tended to come from more rural areas.
The CPHP for aerial deployments was lower than those of underground, ranging from under $700 to $1500 for respondents
in suburban and urban environments, and $1.3K to $2.7K in more rural areas.
When comparing CPHP across builds it can be dicult to identify whether cost dierences are simply due to the distance
between homes or some other factor. Elsewhere in the report we use unit costs per foot to enable like-for-like comparison.
Outliers in the reported costs are many times higher than the average
As noted above, both aerial and underground builds have a wide range of costs. The chart below shows the distribution of
responses in the study.
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
14
For underground, the highest share of responses fell between $10 and $20 (43%); the majority of respondents (63%) had
costs of less than $20/ft and almost all (90%) were under $30/ft. Notably, there were some cases where costs were
signicantly higher – above $70/ft at the top end. The most expensive builds were due to local factors such as navigating
waterways or challenging underground situations in dense urban areas.
For aerial, most respondents (75%) reported costs of $10/ft or less. In fact, over half were between $4/ft and $8/ft. As with
underground, there were some more expensive outliers, with the highest reported costs reaching $30/ft or more.
Labor accounts for over two-thirds of build costs
To understand the costs in more detail, respondents were asked to report labor and materials costs separately.
Across all responses, labor was the dominant cost, accounting for at least 50% and up to 90% of reported unit costs. On
average, labor contributed 73% of the underground build cost and 67% of aerial.
Given labor’s share of cost is roughly twice that of materials, it is understandable that network builders will seek eciencies
here. As we show later in the report, the construction method has a large bearing on cost and more ecient techniques
enable construction crews to faster cover ground.
Looking at the distribution of labor and materials costs in the chart below, it’s clear that the labor drives the long tail of higher
unit costs seen above. The labor costs for both aerial and underground show a similar long tail, whereas the material costs
are more closely clustered.
The median underground labor cost was $12.15/ft and in most cases (90%) was no more than $30/ft. For aerial, the median
was $4/ft with most (92%) less than $12/ft.
For materials, costs ranged up to $6/ft for aerial and $12/ft for underground. The median underground materials cost was
double that of aerial ($4/ft and $2/ft respectively).
20%
43%
27%
5%
4%
0% 0%
1%
14%
47%
22%
11%
3%
0% 0%
3%
Underground Deployment
Labor and Materials Only
Aerial Deployment
Labor and Materials Only
Deployment Costs Distribution
Fig 2.2
Source: Fiber Broadband Association
, Cartesian
Cost per Foot of Underground Deployment
($)
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80$0 $4 $8 $12 $16 $20 $24 $28 $32$0
Cost per Foot of Aerial Deployment ($)
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
15
Population density has a large impact on the cost per foot of underground builds
Population density is one of the key factors in a ber business case; however, this is typically viewed from the perspective of
the footage required to pass each home. In this study, the focus is on how population density impacts the unit cost per foot.
The study found a correlation between higher density and higher cost. For underground deployments, urban areas had the
highest median cost ($23.25/ft) around half that of extremely rural areas ($12.50/ft). Rural areas also had the lowest median
cost for aerial deployments at $5.00/ft, although for aerial, the suburban median cost was higher than that for urban ($8.00/ft
vs. $6.54/ft).
Aerial Labor CostsUnderground Labor Costs
49%
24%
19%
2% 2% 2%
0%
2
%
32%
45%
13%
5%
2%
0% 0%
3%
Aerial Labor Cost per Foot ($)
$4$0 $8 $12 $16 $24 $28 $32$20
Underground Labor Cost per Foot ($)
$10$0 $20 $30 $40 $60 $70 $80$50
9%
31%
22%
20%
9% 9%
22%
27%
31%
2%
13%
5%
Aerial Materials CostsUnderground Materials Costs
Deployment Input Costs Distribution
Fig 2.3
Underground (UG) Aerial
Aerial Materials Cost per Foot ($)
$0 $3 $6$4$2$1 $5$0 $6 $12$8$4$2 $10
Underground Materials Cost per Foot ($)
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
16
Factors driving underground costs up with increasing population density include surface type which is more likely to be a
road or sidewalk: not only are these surfaces more costly to install into than dirt, but they also have higher reinstatement
costs. Also, beneath the surface, builds in more dense areas are more likely to encounter other utilities which can limit the
use of backhoes and other machinery.
It’s worth noting that across the density categories the cost ranges overlap. In some cases, low density areas reported higher
costs than areas that were more dense.
Where available, a choice of construction method can reduce cost
For underground builds, there are a variety of construction methods available, each occupying their own niche. Study
participants reported using directional boring, trenching, micro-trenching, and plowing. Where construction was contracted
out, the choice was often left to the subcontractor.
A description of the most common methods is provided in the table below.
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Extremely Rural
1
Far from any town;
<5 homes per mile
Rural
Small town and surrounding areas;
5 – 10 homes per mile
Suburban
Beyond city outskirts;
11 – 50 homes per mile
Urban
City or densely populated town;
>50 homes per mile
Deployment Cost Ranges by Population Density
Cost per Foot, Labor and Materials Only
Median:
$12.50 $14
.63
$14.59 $23.25
- $5.00 $8.00 $6.54
UG
Aerial
Underground (UG) Aerial
Note: Box represents range between 25th and 75th percentiles and whiskers show full range of responses
1. Limited data for extremely rural aerial deployment
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Fig 2.4
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
17
Respondents were asked to identify the primary construction method employed on their projects. For those with no clear
prime, responses were categorized as using a combination of methods.
Trenching had the lowest median cost at $12.00/ft, followed closely by microtrenching at $14.51/ft. Directional boring was
higher at $15.10/ft but had the widest range of reported costs, especially on the higher end. Surprisingly, plowing had the
highest reported median cost, but the upper range of plowing costs were fairly in-line with or below other methods.
Description Key Advantages
Directional
Boring
Trenching
Microtrenching
Plowing
Boring
• Horizontal hole
(~2” to 6”) drilled 3’ to 5’ deep
with a steerable surface level drill
• Creates a tunnel in desired direction under the
roadway/surface to install conduit
• 2” to 6” wide cut trench, 2’ to 6’ deep via a
chain blade and pulled through by a tractor
• Conduit/cable paced at bottom of the cut
• Trench is reinstated through compaction of
removed spoils
• Narrow trench
, up to 2
” and no deeper than 18”
• Conduit laid directly into the trench within a
roadway
• Routed through/under curbs or into surface
vaults
• 2” to 6” wide slice made 2’ to 4’ deep with a
blade and pulled through with a tractor
• Conduit/cable paced at bottom of the slice and
covered with cutting spoils
• Horizontal hole
(~2” to 6” diameter, 3’ to 5’
deep
) created via boring machine
• Creates a straight path tunnel to install conduit
• Push casing through borehole as it
’s being dug
• Ecient for long distances
• Useful when there
’s limited space
• Minimizes disruption to infrastructure
and environment
• More visibility of the work area allowing
for easier installation
• Allows for easy future expansion
• Advantageous for urban environments
• Speed minimizes disruptions to trac
ow
• Requires less aesthetic restoration
•
Benecial when there
’s no obstacles
along route and in softer soil
environments
• Creates less disturbance to surface area
• Requires less sophisticated
(and
therefore cheaper)
machinery
• Ideal for shorter distances and wider
variety of soil types
Construction
Method
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
18
As mentioned above, given the share of labor costs in deployment, choice of construction method can oer a path to optimize
costs.
Building in rocky areas costs twice as much as laying ber in soft earth
Respondents were also asked to identify the primary terrain type encountered for underground deployment. They were given
the option to select from soft earth, hard clay, sandy, wetlands, rocky, or a mix of terrains.
As anticipated, reported costs were higher for hard ground and rocky areas. Rocky terrain tends to be expensive as it requires
more cutting/drilling and progress is slower. In fact, the median cost for rocky terrain was double that of deploying in soft
earth ($20.00/ft versus $10.00/ft).
Rocky ground also had the longest tail of higher costs, accounting for the top-end of reported underground costs at over
$70/ft.
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Trenching Combination of
Methods
Directional Boring
Microtrenching
Plowing
Underground Deployment Cost Ranges by Primary Construction Method
Cost per Foot, Labor and Materials Only
$12.00 $14.51 $15.10 $15.50 $17.00
Median:
Note: Box represents range between 25th and 75th percentiles and whiskers show full range of responses
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Fig 2.5
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Hard ClaySoft Earth Rocky,
Soft Earth Mixed Terrain
Rocky
Underground Deployment Cost Ranges by Terrain Type
Cost per Foot, Labor and Materials Only
$10.00 $13.50 $15.50 $17.85 $20.00
Median:
Note: Box represents range between 25th and 75th percentiles and whiskers show full range of responses
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Fig 2.6
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
19
The Western states had the highest cost ranges
Given the impact on cost by terrain type and population density, one may expect to nd regional dierences in reported
deployment costs. The map below shows that this was indeed true.
Cost ranges in the West were the most expensive and the Northeast was the least expensive for both aerial and underground.
The Midwest had the widest range of underground costs, with respondents reporting both lower and higher costs than
elsewhere.
Regional cost variations are most likely due to topography and the extent of rocky ground, which we have seen heavily impacts
underground builds. This is also likely to explain why regional dierences are more pronounced for underground construction
than aerial.
Customer connection costs vary by location but tend to be predictable
The focus of the preceding sections was on the cost to pass premises (on a cost per foot basis) in rolling out a network.
Respondents were separately asked to report the average cost of connecting customers. This is commonly referred to as the
“drop cost” and, for the purposes of this study, the cost of ONTs and other CPE is excluded.
22
Reported costs varied by the length of the drop
23
and whether it was aerial or underground. Longer drops (101- 500 feet) and
underground drops had higher median costs than those that were shorter and/or aerial.
Across all drop lengths, underground drop costs typically fell between $575 and $1,200, whereas aerial ranged from $312 to
$833 for most respondents.
In the 101 – 500 feet category, aerial drops had a far lower median cost ($541.00) than underground drops ($827.50). The
costs of materials were broadly similar across aerial and underground, but labor costs were much higher. This can also be
seen in the composition of drop costs—labor accounted for a larger share of underground drops (76%) than aerial (52%).
22
23
– –
Deployment Cost Ranges by Region
25th – 75th Percentiles for Cost per Foot, Labor and Materials Only
West South Midwest Northeast
SOUTH
UG:
$11.25 - $18.85
Aerial
:
$4.88 - $9.00
MIDWEST
UG:
$4.75 - $24.25
Aerial: Insucient data
WEST
UG:
$15.00 - $29.00
Aerial:
$6.00 - $12.50
NORTHEAST
UG:
$6.00 - $18.77
Aerial:
$4.08 - $5.95
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Fig 2.7
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
20
While drop costs can vary between premises, these appear to be of lesser concern to study participants. Drop costs were
reported to be more predictable, with fewer unforeseen problems.
Labor Materials
Median Costs per Drop (CPD) by Drop Length
$462
$284
$632
$138
$257
$196
$600
$541
$828
0 – 100 feet
Underground UndergroundAerial
101 – 500 feet
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Fig 2.8
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
21
SECTION 3: COST TRENDS
Almost half of respondents reported signicant cost increases in the past year
When asked to what extent deployment costs had changed from 2022 to 2023, most respondents (79%) reported that costs
had increased. Of those with rising costs, the majority reported increases of at least 10%.
When asked to identify the primary driver of the cost dierence, those that reported cost increases most often cited labor and
materials as reasons for higher costs. Labor was cited 37% of the time and materials 36% of the time among those with
“signicantly” higher costs. Similarly, labor was cited 32% of the time and materials 38% of the time among those with
“slightly” higher costs.
For underground deployments, engineering and permitting were the third and fourth most cited driver of cost increases. For
aerial, make-ready was the third most cited driver at 13% of the time among those with signicant increases and 7% for those
with slight increases.
1%
10% 10%
33%
46%
Decrease Signicantly
More than 10%
Decrease Slightly
Less than 10%
Remains the Same
No material change
Increase Slightly
Less than 10%
Increase Signicantly
More than 10%
Reported YoY Deployment Cost Changes (2022 – 2023)
Change in Deployment Costs from Last Year to Current Year by Level of Change
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Fig 3.1
37%
32%
43%
50%
36%
38%
57%
11%
5%
5%
11%
11%
11%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Decrease Signicantly
More than 10%
Decrease Slightly
Less than 10%
Increase Slightly
Less than 10%
Increase Signicantly
More than 10%
Identied Drivers of Reported Cost Changes
Reported Cost Change (Current Year vs. Last Year), 2022–2023
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Fig 3.2
Permits EngineeringLabor Materials Make Ready Costs Other
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
22
Costs are expected to increase over the next year, but less steeply than before
Looking to 2024 and beyond for ber deployment, there are reasons to be optimistic on cost. When asked how deployment
costs are expected to change from 2023 to 2024, survey participants generally anticipate costs to increase less than last year.
While 46% of respondents reported “signicant” cost increases last year, only 24% expect the same in 2024. Most
respondents (59%) predict a slight price increase (less than 10%) and 13% expect costs to remain the same.
Labor and materials remain the main reasons for cost increases
Labor and materials were most commonly cited as the reason for the expected cost increases in 2024. 40% of responses
expecting a signicant rise (greater than 10%) and 38% of responses expecting a slight rise (less than 10%) called out labor
as the key driver. Material costs were placed second, cited in 29% of responses expecting a signicant increase and in 33%
that anticipate a slight increase.
Make-ready costs were identied more frequently as a driver of future cost changes than in the year before. Interestingly, this
was both as a driver of higher costs (11% - 14%) and a driver of lower costs (14%). Those anticipating lower costs may be
encouraged by the FCC’s recent proposal to reform pole attachment rules and policies.
24
24
FCC-84 (
1%
10% 10%
33%
46%
0%
4%
13%
59%
24%
Decrease Signicantly
More than 10%
Decrease Slightly
Less than 10%
Remains the Same
No material change
Increase Slightly
Less than 10%
Increase Signicantly
More than 10%
Reported vs
. Expected Annual Deployment Cost Changes
How have deployment costs changed in the last year?
How are costs expected to change in the next year?
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Reported Cost Change
[Current Year vs. Last Year]
2022
–2023 Expected Cost Change [Next Year vs. Current Year] 2023 –2024
Fig 3.3
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
23
For those that answered “other”, the ll-in responses typically referenced macroeconomic conditions and other fees
associated with ber construction.
40%
38%
14%
29%
33%
14%
11%
14%
11%
7%
29%
3%
8%
43%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Identied Drivers of Expected Cost Changes
Expected Cost Change (Next Year vs. Current Year), 2023–2024
Decrease Signicantly
More than 10%
Decrease Slightly
Less than 10%
Increase Slightly
Less than 10%
Increase Signicantly
More than 10%
Source: Fiber Broadband Association, Cartesian
Fig 3.4
Permits EngineeringLabor Materials Make Ready Costs Other
When ber leads, the future follows.
Fiber Deployment Annual Report 2023
24
CONCLUSION
There’s a bright outlook for ber deployment in 2024
Despite the potential for costs to creep higher, there’s reason to remain bullish on ber rollouts. The pace of ber deployment
is expected to remain strong in 2024, bolstered by improved economic conditions and preparation eorts.
Hopefully the worst of high ination and interest rates are now behind us. If these indicators hold, we’ll have a better
macroeconomic environment for large investments like deploying ber.
Ination aside, the sheer amount of federal funding coming into the industry starting this year will spur deployment. After
states spent most of 2023 planning for dispersing the incoming BEAD dollars, 2024 will kick o the process of funds owing
through states to subgrantees. While the bulk of funding most likely won’t make its way to providers until 2025 or later, we
expect early BEAD projects to break ground towards the end of this year. Public funding also makes the ber market more
attractive for private equity investors, and we can expect to see private investment continue to back the market and drive
deployments.
In addition to widespread funding availability, the industry is looking at ways to improve logistics to reduce roadblocks and
clear the path for deployment. The aforementioned eort to reform pole attachment and make-ready rules is one such
example. These reforms would redene the processes for managing bulk attachment requests and allocating replacement
costs. If adopted, providers could expect fewer, less costly delays to hang ber.
Supply chain preparations are also necessary to handle the inux of demand for construction inputs. Manufacturers have
ramped up domestic production in response to BABA requirements for BEAD, easing some concerns over supply availability.
Looking ahead, the industry is well-suited to deliver on promises to close the digital divide and we’ll continue to see ber
used to upgrade networks, expand internet access, and meet consumer needs in the upcoming year.
