How Did We Get Here? NC Laws and Fiber Construction Accountability

What North Carolina’s laws say about competition, construction, and the protections Union County residents should expect.

Residents in Union County, North Carolina, have reported repeated digging, damaged landscaping, utility cuts, home fires, and difficulty getting repairs completed. Those reports raise two separate questions: What authority do our towns actually have, and are the protections already in place being used?

There is no single law that explains every incident. But several decisions made in Raleigh help explain the system residents face today.

2011: The state restricted municipal broadband

In May 2011, House Bill 129 became Session Law 2011-84. Its title, “Level Playing Field/Local Gov’t Competition,” reflected the argument that government-owned networks should compete under conditions comparable to private companies.

The legislation placed requirements on cities providing communications services. These included restrictions on using other municipal revenues to subsidize service, pricing below specified costs, and serving customers outside city boundaries. The law also contains exemptions, so describing it as a complete statewide ban would be inaccurate.

For residents, the issue is whether communities should have greater freedom to build and operate alternatives when private service falls short. Those restrictions matter to the debate over who provides broadband and how communities can respond.

But this was a competition law. It did not authorize contractors to cut utility lines or leave property damaged.

The bill’s primary sponsors were Marilyn Avila, Julia Howard, Becky Carney, and William Wainwright. The Senate’s final third-reading vote was 39–10; the House later agreed to the Senate version 84–32. It became law without the governor’s signature on May 21, 2011.

2012: An investigation raised questions about political money

The National Institute on Money in State Politics published “Dialing Up the Dollars: Telecommunication Interests Donated Heavily to NC Lawmakers” in 2012.

Its findings connected campaign-finance records with lawmakers’ positions on HB 129. Among legislators receiving contributions from the donors examined, supporters averaged $3,768, compared with $2,135 for opponents, a difference of 76%.

The report identified $37,000 in telecommunications contributions to then-House Speaker Thom Tillis in 2010–2011 and $19,500 to Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger. Both supported the bill. It also found that the four primary sponsors received a combined $37,750.

These figures warrant scrutiny. They do not establish that anyone sold a vote. Contributions can support politicians who already share an industry’s position.

The responsible question is whether industry access and political spending helped shape legislation, and whether residents had an equally meaningful voice. That requires examining lobbying records, correspondence, proposed language, and legislative decisions alongside donations.

This historical investigation also does not prove that today’s fiber companies purchased permission to damage Union County neighborhoods.

2013: North Carolina established safe-digging protections

The Underground Utility Safety and Damage Prevention Act was enacted in 2013 and has since been amended. It establishes responsibilities for facility operators and excavators to reduce damage to underground infrastructure. It expressly preserves liability for damage or injury under applicable law.

Under current G.S. 87-122, ordinary excavation generally requires notice to the notification center at least three full working days in advance. The statute also addresses checking utility responses and markings, planning work to avoid damage, and taking precautions near existing facilities. Exceptions and specific procedures apply; an 811 request alone is not the entire safety obligation.

For a utility strike, the investigation should ask:

Was the work area properly covered by a locate request?
Were the lines accurately marked?
Did the excavator follow the required precautions?

A cut line alone does not identify which party failed. The excavator, utility operator, or locator may hold relevant evidence.

Residents can report suspected violations to the Underground Damage Prevention Review Board. Its reporting process accepts supporting correspondence, photographs, and videos. A report of a safety violation is separate from pursuing compensation for property damage.

2021: The state put broadband permits on a deadline

For questions about town oversight of construction, G.S. 160A-296.1 is particularly relevant. Added through the 2021 state budget, it governs broadband applications for permits or encroachments in municipal rights-of-way, subject to the statute’s exception.

A town generally must issue a written approval or denial within 30 days. Without a written decision, the application is deemed approved. A revised application correcting identified deficiencies generally receives a 10-day decision deadline.

The statute also prevents towns from imposing conditions beyond those it lists. However, towns may establish reasonable installation guidelines protecting public use of streets, require prompt repair of damage caused by the applicant or its agents, and require an affidavit of financial responsibility or commercially reasonable insurance adequate for repairs.

This is a real limit on local discretion, but it also preserves specific protections. The practical question is whether towns have translated those protections into clear requirements and effective follow-through.

Residents should ask officials to identify the exact provision blocking a requested action rather than relying on a general statement that their hands are tied.

Why road ownership matters

Living within a town does not necessarily mean that the town controls your road. G.S. 160A-296 gives municipalities general street authority while recognizing authority vested in the state transportation board.

For example, Indian Trail’s published fiber procedures distinguish town-owned roads from NCDOT-owned roads. For town roads, they describe plan review, preconstruction meetings, advance outreach, and property restoration. The page says companies should place door hangers one week before work begins.

It also states that the town can stop releasing additional encroachment agreements when a company has persistent work issues, until those issues are resolved. For NCDOT roads, the town describes a different approval and complaint process.

Residents should ask when that stated authority applies, whether it has been used, and how it operates within state law. It should not be treated as a blanket power to stop every project.

What accountability should look like

The records reviewed establish restrictions on municipal broadband and construction approvals. They do not establish that those restrictions caused a particular utility strike or unfinished repair.

Our coalition’s concern is whether the system places too much responsibility on individual homeowners to chase answers after damage occurs. That concern can be tested through records: complaint logs, inspection reports, repair deadlines, and outcomes.

We should request:

A clear point of responsibility. Identify the provider, contractor, approving agency, and person handling repairs.
Written restoration expectations. Explain what must be repaired, how completion is assessed, and when residents should expect follow-up.
Documented responses to repeat problems. Show what changes after multiple complaints involving the same company or contractor.
A public explanation of legal limits. Identify which protections towns can enforce and which require legislative changes.
An assessment of coordination options. Ask what towns, NCDOT, and providers can do to reduce repeated disruption.

These are requests for action and transparency, not claims that every measure is already required by law.

Residents can strengthen that effort by keeping dated photographs, company and contractor names, outage details, repair costs, and written communications. Ask for the applicable encroachment agreement, approved plans, and records showing the authorized work area. Better internet access should come with safe work and completed repairs. Understanding these laws gives Union County residents a stronger basis for asking towns to use their existing authority and legislators to address gaps.

Submit your experience through the Union County Fiber Accountability Coalition’s incident-report form at www.ucfac.com/report-an-incident.