Modernizing Montana’s broadband infrastructure policy
Relocation reimbursement may sound like a narrow technical issue, but it determines who pays when government requires a company to move its own infrastructure out of the way of a public project. That answer carries real consequences for consumers and taxpayers.
Montana’s laws governing infrastructure relocation in public rights-of-way were written before broadband became one of the state’s most important forms of infrastructure. Today, transportation corridors carry fiber, cable, telephone, electric, water, and sewer infrastructure operated by providers that may have different legal classifications but often compete to serve the same customers.
That raises an important question: when a public transportation project requires an existing communications facility to move, should relocation assistance depend primarily on the provider’s historical classification, or on whether the facility is lawfully located in the right-of-way and must be relocated because of a qualifying public project?
On this exact question, Montana was once ahead of the curve. The state first required relocation reimbursement for right-of-way users back in the 1960s, decades before many other states had any statutory framework addressing utility relocation at all. But that early leadership has not kept pace with the market it was built to serve, and other states are now moving past Montana by extending that same reimbursement model to broadband specifically.
Under Montana law, the state generally pays 75% of eligible relocation, dismantling and removal costs associated with qualifying highway construction projects. Although many services forced to relocate receive this assistance, broadband and cable providers do not. As the communications market has changed, similarly situated infrastructure owners should face consistent rules when government construction requires relocation.
Florida and Virginia have both recently moved to extend their own relocation frameworks to broadband specifically — precisely the modernization Montana pioneered six decades ago but has yet to complete. Florida created a dedicated grant program in 2025 to reimburse communications providers for relocation costs.
Virginia takes a different approach: its state budget authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to establish a program reimbursing broadband providers for relocating some of their facilities. Arkansas has gone further still: its 2025 law defines the utilities eligible for relocation reimbursement to explicitly include cable and broadband service providers alongside electric, water, sewer, and other utilities.
For Montana consumers, this is a question of market parity. Consider two providers serving the same community. Each owns an existing communications network in a highway right-of-way, each has a lawful basis for occupying that right-of-way, and each must relocate because the Montana Department of Transportation is widening the highway. Each incurs $400,000 in documented relocation costs.
If both qualify for Montana’s 75% reimbursement, each would receive $300,000 and bear $100,000. But if one qualifies because of its statutory classification while the other does not, the second provider could face the entire $400,000 expense while its competitor receives $300,000 in state assistance. The hypothetical does not establish that Montana law produces this result in every circumstance, but it illustrates the competitive consequences that can arise when rules developed for an earlier communications market are applied to today’s broadband industry.
Montana can address this issue without creating an unlimited subsidy. A modern framework could establish technology and provide neutral eligibility while remaining specific about what costs qualify. The central question should be whether an existing facility is lawfully located in the right-of-way, whether a qualifying public project requires its relocation, and whether the claimed costs are reasonable, documented, and directly attributable to that relocation.
Reimbursement should be limited to like-for-like relocation. If a highway project requires a two-mile fiber line to be moved, the reasonable cost of moving that existing line is different from paying to replace it with additional capacity that the provider wanted to build anyway. Voluntary upgrades, network expansion, and unrelated maintenance should remain the provider’s responsibility.
North Carolina demonstrates why relocation policy should also be treated as a transportation project-management issue. Its utility-relocation process can begin as much as 90 weeks before a project’s letting date, giving transportation officials and utility companies time to identify conflicts and coordinate relocation. South Carolina has similarly examined utility relocation as part of broader transportation project delivery.
Regional examples from Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington provide additional lessons. Idaho emphasizes coordination between transportation agencies and utilities. Wyoming provides a structured process for determining responsibility for relocation costs. Washington emphasizes restoring existing utility functions rather than subsidizing unrelated upgrades, which is an approach consistent with a like-for-like standard.
Montana does not need to choose between protecting taxpayers and treating broadband and cable providers neutrally. A modern system can do both. The state can preserve its existing 75% reimbursement structure while updating eligibility to focus on the circumstances of the relocation rather than the historical identity of the provider. Clear documentation, advance notice, predictable timelines, like-for-like reimbursement, and coordination with federal broadband programs would create a more consistent system.
When a public transportation project requires a lawfully located communications facility to move, Montana should have a predictable framework that treats providers of the same services consistently, reimburses legitimate relocation costs and encourages efficient project completion.
