Broadband ISP Connexin Says Deploying Poles is Eco Friendly
Broadband provider Connexin, which is busy deploying a new 10Gbps capable full fibre (FTTP) network across parts of Hull, East Lincolnshire and Yorkshire in England, has introduced a new-ish argument into the debate over wood poles by highlighting how using them is “less carbon intensive than digging ducts.” But we suspect it won’t sway the refuseniks.
Poles being used to run overhead cables (telecoms and electricity) are a common sight across the UK. But not everybody is a fan and those who complain often focus on their negative visual appearance, as well as concerns about exposure to damage from major storms, the lack of effective prior consultation or engineers that fail to follow safety rules while building. Such issues can become particularly emotive when poles are deployed into areas that haven’t previously had them before.
Network providers often try to combat such concerns by highlighting the benefits of their new infrastructure (e.g. cheap gigabit broadband), while also pointing to the fact that poles are quick and cost-effective to build. Not to mention that they’re less disruptive (avoiding the noise, access restrictions and damage to pavements of trenching) and can be deployed into areas where there may be no space or access to safely put new underground cables.
However, one argument we haven’t seen being used much before is that wood poles can also be environmentally friendly, which is something that Connexin has now pointed out while deploying new poles in Summergroves Way, off Hessle Road in Hull (East Yorkshire). According to the provider, wooden poles were less carbon-intensive than digging trenches for ducts and could be reused at the end of their 30-year lifespan.
A Spokesperson for Connexin said (Hull Live):
“While there is the visual aspect of having poles on our streets, using timber actually locks in carbon for the 30-year lifespan of the pole, at the end of which it is still available for other uses. It also means fewer road closures, diversions and damage to road surfaces, walls and gardens.
Laying cables underground currently uses more machinery and is more carbon-intensive and disruptive to the environment in the short-term.”
The points being made are certainly fair, although at this stage such remarks seem unlikely to sway those who have – in recent months – become increasingly hostile to pole-based deployments. The use of poles could potentially be reduced if infrastructure sharing became more attractive in the Hull area (like it is elsewhere, via Openreach’s regulated PIA product).
However, to do infrastructure sharing properly would require Ofcom to force stricter measures on incumbent KCOM, which could take a long time to work through. The alternative of a voluntary agreement between commercial rivals, while technically possible, is unlikely to be as effective (too many vested interests at play, just like with Openreach before Ofcom pushed for more changes).
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook and Linkedin.
« Forget Mobile SIM and eSIM, Now its Time for Always On rSIM
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.
NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Latest UK ISP News
- FTTP (5538)
- BT (3518)
- Politics (2542)
- Openreach (2300)
- Business (2267)
- Building Digital UK (2247)
- FTTC (2045)
- Mobile Broadband (1978)
- Statistics (1790)
- 4G (1669)
- Virgin Media (1625)
- Ofcom Regulation (1467)
- Fibre Optic (1396)
- Wireless Internet (1392)
- FTTH (1382)
Rubbish, just something their PR is trying. They do it because its cheaper. If it was cheaper to use any other method they would do that whether it was better or worse for the environment.
If they are really worried about the environment they would shut up shop and stop trading to save any environmental costs cutting down trees and burning through power to run it all.
Your point of hypocrisy is not a win you think it is –
>”They do it because its cheaper. If it was cheaper to use any other method they would do that whether it was better or worse for the environment.”
I agree in part but all costs are borne by customers so it is in the customers interest also, and I also am not that worried about carbon by ISPs but it point is simply that poles are more efficient and environmentally friendly and that is an objective fact.
>If they are really worried about the environment they would shut up shop and stop trading to save any environmental costs cutting down trees and burning through power to run it all.
Yes and some would but it point was not that if we killed all humans, I mean ISPs, carbon emissions would reduce but that poles are objectively more environmentally friendly than digging.
It’s a straw man argument. Nobody was complaining that trenching was bad for the environemnt. They were complaining that poles are unsightly and unecessary.
Pretending they are building poles ‘for the environment’ is pathetic.
Of course you have to chop down a tree to make a pole…
… And then you plant another tree to grow another pole.
Is that why broadband roll out is so slow? We’re waiting for trees to grow?
It’s because you live in Timbuktu.
LOL.
Some poles around here on one of the newer estates are metal and not wood., I think it may have been a trial because that is the only estate that have metal poles, estates built after it have wooden poles, well the ones that have poles.
Zzoomm confuses me, in some roads they go underground and don’t use poles, even if they are available and in other roads, like mine they use the poles.
i am glad they used the pole, saves some work.
Tipperary actually and as everyone knows, it’s a long, long way to Tipperary so that’s a lot of poles.
Mark are you really an expert ? If you were then surely you would realise that sharing infrastructure is the most eco friendly way of providing choice of internet service providers . You hint many times that KCOM is the problem. They have openly stated they will share , yes they will charge more than companies such as open reach they are a completely different entity , but they can only charge a fair price for sharing . Connexin and MS3 have not even used what is available to negotiate , connexin only applying in the correct manner in January2024 , MS3 have not applied correctly and neither have either used the ADRS dispute facility or asked for OFCOM to intervene .
When you say about open reach sharing infrastructure , they too have chosen in parts of the country to put in their own infrastructure when there is an incumbent infrastructure in place .
The fact is OFCOM is as useless as a chocolate fireguard, Ignoring what is evident throughout the UK poor practise of telecommunications code operators ignoring their code of practise.
Code operators have been given open season to install multiple infrastructures anywhere in the UK , not where they are needed but flooding multiple infrastructures and predominantly telegraph poles when gigabit capable infrastructure exists . Government legislation permitted development for telecommunications installations needs urgent revoke or at least an amendment to stop poor operator practise and unnecessary infrastructure being built .There will be so much redundant or little used infrastructure blighting our streets
I would stick to the Facebook group, Joyce.
The sort of people who don’t want poles wouldn’t give a flying you know what about that, sadly.
This is pathetic. Now parroting climate cult points to cover up for their lazyness. Has the same energy as Khan arguing that him taxing people more makes the weather better
Guilt tripping people like this will just make them mad and refuse the service. They have a right to refuse new poles, especially if there are already existing poles for another provider
Show me where on the doll Sadiq Khan touched you, John. You seem to need to bring him into anything so he must’ve done something awful to you.
Just FYI people don’t have the right to refuse new poles on public land as of right now. A matter of discussion if that’s how it should be but that’s how it is. Appreciate reality may not be your first port of call.
@XGS
>A matter of discussion
If any government wants to improve internet quality, one would hope it not a matter for discussion.
I agree there is no ‘right to refuse’ on public land. Even if it was it is PD rights which means government has given them the more powers over this area of infrastructure.
Also, Poles are cheaper which means the end customers can get a better deal.. of course it cancels out if there is other underground developments.
The energy consumption and emissions generated by computer networks over time likely dwarf whatever method you use to deploy the fibre that connects to them.
As is often the case with eco claims like this, it is not so easy to verify definitively without establishing criteria and crunching the numbers.
Smart, but have you considered that the planet will most likely end in the heat death of the universe??
No we don’t need numbers. It is objectively better for the environment to be placed by poles – we are not discussing that topics you mentioned.
My point is that without actual evidence, a claim like this is just greenwashing.
You need to define precisely what you are comparing and why one approach is ‘greener’ than another.
Otherwise people might imagine a company is simply trying to reduce the flak it gets putting up new poles outside people’s houses by twanging their green heartstrings.
Poles are cheaper and they can put them up anyway. Poles also have a manufacturing, transportation, installation and possible pollution cost from the chemical gunk that covers them.
Are they greener on balance taking all factors into account ? No idea and neither, I suspect, do Connexin.
Green virtue signalling that just happens to be the cheapest way of doing the job.
I am watching FTTP being installed by trenching. They are using a hand held cutter, a cutter on wheels, a mini “JCB”, a dump truck, a pneumatic drill, a compacter, a roller, lorry to remove/deliver aggregate and a lorry gas heated to supply tarmac. The process is around 2 weeks for 1000 metres and 30 homes. As for poles I believe one lorry digs a hole and places a pole in and it is done in a very short time. There will of course be some associated “Civils” to be done but poles do seem to have a lower carbon footprint as far as installation goes. (And as a side issue the road looks like a dogs dinner now and later on OpenReach will do it all again or install poles when they get around to it ).
Don’t the fibre between poles still go in ducts?
Can and will be strung between poles if no duct exists.
Openreach network is a mix of both poles used both for distribution and as carrier poles used solely to get cable to other poles.
The majority of the fibre will still go in the ground, at least this is the case with openreach. The pole (in most cases) is the last point before bringing a cable to the house.
This means it saves them the dig from pole to house, which is cheaper and means a quicker installation.
The main problem is, if an openreach pole exists all infrastructure companies are allowed to use the pole. If the infrastructure company builds the pole, they are the only one allowed to use the pole. Other infrastructure/service providers will still build there own networks and dig up the ground. This company has chosen (more than likely for speed) not to wait for openreach to lay duct but to put in poles, wholly for cost reasons.
The fact that they are building infrastructure in the first place very much means that none of what they do is eco friendly because it is unecassary.
In an ideal world the goverment would take over Openreach, there would be one infrastructure provider and all of the service providers would sell their fibre using cables that only needed to be put in place once.
The poles are all about cost, nothing more and the eco stance looks good for company image but is very untrue.
Overhead cabling is more prone to damage from storms and accidents than underground installations. I work for an ISP and did a few years in fault management. The amount of FTTP failures that happen when it gets windy is unbelievable.
We need robust infrastructure that can cope with our extreme weather changes.
Interesting that, about increased storm damage in high wind. Here the town has been taken over by an independent fibre system supplier and no-one asked the public if they would mind the streets being overrun with overhead cables and supporting poles. Even the local town council seem to have taken a ‘not my problem’ approach to this question. It’s a simple ethical issue – is it worth spoiling the street environment for the sake of some cheaper phone calls and better Netflix reception? I think not!
Ah, the eco claim. If I see anything that is eco something I know it is being done for their benefit not yours
Ex openreach engineer here.
I have to say I find the practices of a lot of these PIAs absolutely ludicrous. It’s about time ofcom stepped in we had companies digging without checking for services and damaging the preexisting network and all sorts.
I’m reading articles from very unhappy customers who come home to find a pole in their front garden and I have to say I agree with their complainst. In many of these places they already have multiple other providers and the addition of connexin poles is unecassary, especially when they are the only service provder who has the right to use the poles. When network already exists under the ground and they choose to put up a pole, make no mistake the reason is purely cost related and it is my understanding that if the poles are on private land they MUST have a wayleave.
In one town of 20000 I heard that the PIA got an uptake of under 10 houses, very eco efficiant when network already exists for the customers! Unfortunately we are in the wild West of ISPs and it is very much my view that Openreach should be the only company that deals with the infrastructure.
The goverment had created this situation to prevent a monopoly and speed up the rate of build. Unfortunately these cowboy companies all cherry pick locations and build where it will likely be most profitable. Worst case I have seen 5 infrastructure companies all in one area. Yet the less profitable areas still wait for full fibre.
This is detrimental to the environment as multiple companies are building the same network in the same places. Poles are not eco friendly by any stretch of the imagination. It’s time for the telecoms industry to open their eyes and put a stop to this madness. One infrastructure company owned by the goverment whom multiple CPS can sell their broadband from is what we need.
I no longer work for openreach so have no vested interest in the company but from my experiences working from them I can say whole heartily that the current situation makes no sense for the consumer. Especially when companies like this are putting up poles where preexisting network already exists, which when they inevitably go bankrupt will no longer be maintained.