The vexed question of whether it’s always right to use “telegraph poles“, which are far from popular with many UK communities, when deploying the new generation of gigabit broadband ISP networks came up for debate in parliament yesterday. MPs broadly called for change and stronger rules are coming “early” in 2025, but whether they will be enough remains to be seen.
First things first. The United Kingdom, not unlike many other countries, is already home to millions of poles (both wood and metal) – these are frequently used for electricity distribution and street lighting, as well as telecoms and smart sensors. Suffice to say that poles are a common sight across the country (if you live in such an area then they’re as normal as traffic lights) and form a key part of how gigabit broadband operators are choosing to deploy new full fibre (FTTP) networks.
Telecoms operators typically like poles because they’re very quick and cost-effective to build (several times cheaper than trenching), can be deployed in areas where there may be no space or access to safely put new underground cables, are less disruptive (avoiding the noise, access restrictions and damage to pavements of street works) and can be built under Permitted Development (PD) rights with only minimal prior notice.
The previous government, driven by its targets for expanding gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure “nationwide” (c.99% coverage) by 2030 under their £5bn Project Gigabit programme, even facilitated this by cutting red tape to help make such work as easy as possible. This, along with other changes and investment programmes, has helped to attract tens of billions of pounds in private investment and spurred a massive commercial deployment of new networks.
As a result of all that, some 85% of premises across the UK now have access to gigabit-capable broadband services (here), and Ofcom predicts this will reach around 97-98% by May 2027 (here). So far this approach has clearly been successful. But poles aren’t everybody’s cup of tea and, with such a significant amount of related civil engineering occurring, it’s perhaps no surprise that there has also been a rise in complaints from residents.
The parliamentary debate
Over the last few years’ we’ve reported on multiple complaints and protests against the deployment of poles – these are often particularly common in areas that haven’t previously had poles before (i.e. the past infrastructure was underground) or where several gigabit broadband networks may already exist.
Related issues typically highlight the negative visual appearance of poles, as well as concerns about their exposure to damage from major storms, the lack of effective prior consultation (often there isn’t any, except an easily missed notice on the street), creating obstructions for pavement users when poorly placed (e.g. wheelchairs, prams), the duplication of existing infrastructure or engineers that fail to follow safety rules while building etc.
Yesterday’s debate in parliament, which was tabled by Labour MP Laurence Turner, saw other ministers echo the aforementioned complaints from their own constituencies (there was little sympathy for network operators). Some MPs also highlighted issues where strong protests by local residents are completely ignored or operators had pledged to only build underground, before later deploying poles (note: plans can change after engineering surveys, which may identify problems). The issue of poor community engagement was a common complaint.
Laurence Turner MP said:
“In seeking to address these concerns, a number of residents in my constituency have, individually and collectively, attempted to follow the steps set out in the code of practice, including the complaints process. However, the code of practice, in its current form, fails to provide sufficient redress. It states that a complaints procedure should be in place, but it fails to go further than a company providing written responses detailing why a complaint is accepted or rejected. Frankly, that is not good enough. We must focus on preventing poor practice, as well as encouraging the best.”
Finally, there were the usual calls for greater infrastructure sharing, which is an extremely complicated area. Some MPs and their constituents believe this is an easy problem to resolve and have a tendency to over-simplify the challenges. Alex Ballinger MP (Labour) asked: “Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is accessible infrastructure underground already, broadband providers should use that?” If only it were so easy.
Most network operators already do everything possible to share existing poles and ducts, since that’s a lot more cost-efficient than building new stuff (e.g. Openreach’s network is widely re-used by rivals via a regulated solution as they have a dominant market position). But this isn’t available to every location and sometimes local restrictions, as well as any limitations (commercial or practical) imposed by existing operators, mean that it’s not always possible (e.g. sometimes no viable underground alternatives exist to poles, such as if past cables have been direct buried without ducts).
Meanwhile, a smaller network operator might build a new trench and ducting but keep it closed to rivals in order to protect the value of that high-risk investment (i.e. not allowing other altnets a free ride). If they weren’t able to do that, then they might have just built poles instead or not deployed at all.
The existing Access to Infrastructure (ATI) Regulations 2016, which applies to all operators, does include provisions on the exchange of information about existing infrastructure, and the right to access that infrastructure on fair and reasonable commercial terms etc. But this doesn’t matter much if a commercially viable deal cannot be reached. However, the recent efforts between Connexin, MS3 and KCOM in Hull suggest that, with enough of a push, solutions can sometimes still be found (here). But KCOM also has an incumbent position in Hull, which means they face regulatory pressures that other altnets do not.
Click over to read the government’s response on page 2..
