Poles are not luxuries but necessities for expanding broadband
In May 2026, Brazil's Attorney General's Office issued a ruling on the shared use of utility poles — the unassuming wooden structures that carry both electricity and internet to millions — and in doing so, exposed a deeper tension between infrastructure access and infrastructure stewardship. Telecom operators heard in the decision a long-awaited affirmation that connectivity is a right, not a privilege to be negotiated pole by pole. Energy distributors heard something more troubling: a mandate without a method, and the risk of systems strained beyond their design. The question now before regulators and legislators is not merely technical but philosophical — who bears the burden of a shared commons, and who gets to set its terms.
- The AGU ruling arrived as a legal lifeline for telecoms, who have long struggled to access electrical poles needed to expand broadband into underserved communities across Brazil.
- Energy distributors sounded the alarm over infrastructure safety, warning that forced sharing without technical guardrails risks overloaded poles, downed wires, and fires.
- Smaller telecom providers rallied around a proposed price cap of 5.44 reais per pole, arguing that without cost certainty, investment in network expansion remains too risky to pursue.
- Abradee countered by championing a Senate-approved bill — PL 3.220/2019 — as the only framework capable of balancing access rights with the distributors' duty to manage their own infrastructure.
- Anatel and Aneel now face the task of converting a legal opinion into enforceable technical standards, while Congress holds the power — and the pressure — to write a more permanent resolution.
When Brazil's Attorney General's Office issued its ruling on utility pole sharing in May 2026, it did not settle a dispute so much as clarify the battle lines. The decision — interpreting a recent government decree — landed differently depending on which side of the infrastructure divide you occupied.
For telecom associations Abrint and NEO, the ruling was welcome news. It affirmed that utility poles are essential infrastructure and that access to them cannot be left to individual negotiation. Abrint, representing telecom operators, celebrated the reduction in legal uncertainty while cautioning that the ruling alone was not enough — governance rules, pricing formulas, and enforceable timelines would still need to follow. NEO went further, calling for an interim price cap of 5.44 reais per pole to give its roughly 150 member companies — serving over 15 million customers across more than 5,000 municipalities — the confidence to invest in network growth.
Abradee, representing electricity distributors, viewed the same ruling with alarm. Their concern was not sharing in principle, but sharing without structure. Poles already under strain, they argued, could not absorb new occupants without proper technical safeguards — and the consequences of getting it wrong ranged from service disruption to physical danger. Their preferred solution was legislative: a bill already passed by the Senate, PL 3.220/2019, which would establish a comprehensive framework for pole governance, cost-reflective pricing, and a managed transition period.
What the moment revealed was not a resolution but a map of what remains unresolved. The AGU had spoken on the law; Anatel and Aneel must now speak on the technical standards; and Congress must decide whether to write a permanent answer. The poles themselves, indifferent to the debate, continue to carry both light and signal — waiting for the institutions above them to agree on the rules below.
Brazil's top legal authority has weighed in on one of the country's most contentious infrastructure questions: who gets to use the wooden poles that carry both electricity and telecommunications lines, and at what cost. The ruling from the Attorney General's Office, or AGU, landed in May 2026 like a stone in still water—creating ripples that moved in opposite directions depending on where you stood.
For the telecommunications industry, the decision felt like vindication. Abrint, which represents telecom operators, and NEO, an association of smaller connectivity providers, both read the AGU's interpretation of a recent decree as a clear statement: utility poles are essential infrastructure, and access to them cannot be optional. The ruling, they argued, reduces the legal fog that has long surrounded pole-sharing arrangements. Abrint emphasized that poles are not luxuries but necessities for expanding broadband to underserved regions, and that shared use of electrical distribution infrastructure should not hinge on the whims of individual interpretation. Yet even as Abrint celebrated the legal clarity, the organization was careful to note that a court opinion is not the same as a workable system. The ruling, they said, needs to be paired with actual governance rules—clear responsibilities for each party, enforceable timelines, cost-based pricing formulas, and proportional oversight.
NEO pushed the conversation further, calling for a specific price ceiling of 5.44 reais per pole until a permanent cost methodology could be established through the regulatory process. The association, which claims roughly 150 member companies operating across more than 5,000 municipalities and serving over 15 million customers, framed the price cap as essential to ensuring fair treatment across contracts and giving companies confidence to invest in network expansion.
On the other side of the divide sat Abradee, the association representing Brazil's electricity distributors. They received the AGU ruling with visible unease. The distributors saw not clarity but the beginning of a new problem. Their concern was structural: poles were already crowded, and mandatory sharing without proper technical safeguards could lead to overloaded infrastructure, fallen wires, fires, and compromised safety. Abradee did not reject the idea of sharing outright; instead, they pushed hard for Congress to pass what they called a definitive solution—specifically, a bill that had already cleared the Senate, known as PL 3.220/2019.
That bill, in Abradee's view, offered what the AGU ruling could not: a comprehensive framework that would prevent chaotic pole occupation while preserving the distributors' ability to manage their own infrastructure. The bill would allow distributors to choose whether to manage poles directly or hire third parties to do so. It would ensure that pricing reflected actual usage rather than a flat rate. It would include a transition period with price caps and incentives for companies to regularize their existing arrangements. And it would explicitly prevent telecom companies from subsidizing their services by shifting costs to the electricity system.
What emerged from these competing statements was not consensus but clarity about what each side needed to move forward. The AGU had ruled on the law; now the regulators—the telecommunications agency Anatel and the electricity regulator Aneel—would have to translate that ruling into actual technical standards. Meanwhile, Congress held the power to settle the question more permanently through legislation. The poles themselves, silent and wooden, continued to carry both electricity and data, waiting for the system to decide whose rules would govern them.
Notable Quotes
Poles are essential infrastructure for connectivity expansion, and shared use cannot depend on optional interpretations— Abrint position
Technical and regulatory definitions remain pending, requiring balanced and collaborative work between Aneel and Anatel— Abradee statement
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the AGU ruling divide the sector so sharply when it seems to say the same thing to everyone—that poles must be shared?
Because it doesn't actually say how. The telecoms read it as a mandate; the distributors read it as a threat without guardrails. One side sees access, the other sees chaos.
What does Abradee actually fear will happen if poles get too crowded?
Overloaded infrastructure. Fallen wires, fires, structural failure. They're not being theatrical—poles have weight limits and safety margins. Too many cables, and the whole system becomes dangerous.
So why does NEO want a price ceiling of 5.44 reais specifically?
It's a placeholder. They need stability to invest. If prices are uncertain, companies won't build networks. The ceiling gives them predictability until a permanent cost model is ready.
Does the AGU ruling actually solve anything, then?
It clarifies the law. But law and regulation are different things. The ruling says poles must be shared; it doesn't say how much to charge, who maintains what, or what happens when something breaks.
So Congress has to finish what the AGU started?
Exactly. And both sides are already lobbying for different versions of that finish line.