Panduit
Webinar Date: February 17, 2026
Key Takeaways
- Cut delays and rework: Use a clear, tiered decision approach to avoid stop-works and redesign loops.
- Pass inspection the first time: Adopt simple, field-ready proofs.
- Buy once, buy right: Choose splitters, closures, NIDs, and pedestals using recognized standards matched to your hazards.
- Scale with confidence: Leverage Panduit solutions and the Panduit ONE Partner network to standardize installs and accelerate turn-up.
Frequently Asked Questions
With all the BEAD funding rolling out, we’re seeing permitting timelines increase significantly in some jurisdictions. What’s changed, and how are leading ISPs staying ahead of this?
- Great question, and you’re not alone—this is the number one pain point we’re hearing across the industry. What’s changed is volume. BEAD has created a tsunami of applications hitting permitting offices that were already understaffed before the funding even arrived. While I cannot speak to how leading ISPs are managing this, leading ISPs have been urging FCC to impose national review timelines as well as cap the cost associated with permitting. If you have been following the news, things like 60 day shot clock for standard wireline permits and 90 days for complex or multi-jurisdictional build have been proposed. For those not familiar with the shot clock, it is basically the number of days a local or state authority has to approve or deny an application and failure to do so that application can be considered approved or “deemed granted”.
Any thoughts on how the NTIA is relaxing Environmental Regulations in order to approve BEAD applications?
- That’s a great question, but I would rephrase it to say how is NTIA streamlining Environmental Regulations instead of relaxing Environmental Regulations. This is because NTIA does not have jurisdiction to relax Environmental regulations. But this is how NTIA is helping streamline the process. If you’re deploying fiber along existing roadways or utility corridors—what NTIA calls ‘previously disturbed rights-of-way’—you can often qualify for a categorical exclusion, which means you bypass the NEPA environmental review. Think of it as TSA pre-check at the airport where you can expedite security screening. So when you are planning your routes try to take advantage of the categorical exclusions to avoid delays with NEPA reviews.
In the hazard-to-architecture matrix slide, pedestals were identified as a good option for above-grade access points. Is there a preferred material recommended for pedestals, and does it matter what environment they’re deployed in?
- Great observation from the matrix. The short answer is that both plastic and metal pedestals are widely used in the field, and the matrix doesn’t mandate one over the other. But when you factor in real-world hazard scenarios, metal pulls ahead pretty quickly. Here’s what we’re seeing in the field: plastic pedestals are lighter, lower cost upfront, and resist corrosion—so they have a place. But when you map them against the hazard categories in that matrix, they start to show gaps. Take a controlled burn in agricultural or rural areas—plastic pedestals will simply melt or deform. When a tractor or combine clips a pedestal during harvest, guess what happens, plastic will shatter. A vehicle leaving the roadway and striking a pedestal will not only damage the pedestal but splicing housed inside the pedestal. So while both materials are in service and have their applications, if you’re mapping pedestal material selection back to that hazard matrix—especially for rural deployments, near roadways, farm fields, metal is the more resilient architecture choice. The incremental cost upfront pays for itself the first time a John Deere finds your pedestal.
Are there public, online sources that track utility strikes and drilling-related incidents—so we can benchmark risk and learn from others’ mistakes?
- Yes, there are online sources available that track this information. One resource that I have come across is the DIRT tool maintained by Common Ground Alliance. DIRT stands for Damage Information Reporting Tool and it is a national database of utility strikes and damages including the root cause for these which vary from notification failures to locating errors to excavation mistakes. I don’t believe CGA has released their report for 2025 but the 2024 report, unfortunately, did not see a decrease in the damages reported compared to 2023. If you look at the DIRT dashboard you will come across states where the number of damages are significantly higher. If you are in any of those states, please do pay close attention to the root causes in those states, since sometimes it could be related to incorrect or delayed responses to the locate requests which can impact your schedule if you don’t have a buffer in your schedule to account for such delays.
Referral Webinar Link
If you would like more information from this webinar, please review the details below.