Gov MP Calls on Julia Lopez to Tighten Rules on Broadband Poles
The Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness, Graham Stuart, has followed up his previous calls for the UK government to clampdown on the use of “ugly and unnecessary” poles – used to deploy some gigabit broadband networks – by sending a letter to the Digital Infrastructure Minister, Julia Lopez, which makes five key “demands“.
Poles that support the deployment of overhead cables are a common sight across much of the UK (Openreach alone has deployed around 4 million of them) and can be built under Permitted Development (PD) rights with only minimal prior notice. But poles also have a tendency to rub people up the wrong way, particularly when they’re deployed along streets that haven’t previously had them before, or where too many poles already exist.
Network operator’s often use poles because they’re significantly cheaper, less disruptive and quicker to deploy than running new trenches down pavements. Sometimes they may even be the only viable option due to the limitations of the area (no existing ducts or space for new trenching etc.). The high cost of trenching also means that poles often make the difference between an area getting a competitive full fibre network or being skipped.
Advertisement
The situation in East Yorkshire, particularly around full fibre (FTTP) deployments in the Hull area by MS3 and Connexin (e.g. Hedon, Beverley), is further complicated by the fact that the operators have found it difficult to run their fibre via KCOM’s existing infrastructure. This is partly because Ofcom doesn’t strictly require KCOM to offer a regulated cable duct and pole access solution that is exactly like the one Openreach offers via Physical Infrastructure Access (PIA), which is something we’ve discussed before (here).
Suffice to say, the rival operators claim that it is economically unviable to use KCOM’s ducts when compared with Openreach’s pricing, which they use elsewhere in the country. The situation has partly contributed to the protests that both operators have faced against their use of poles in parts of the same area (examples here, here and here).
Graham Stuart’s Demands
In response to all this the local MP, Graham Stuart, has now written a new letter to the Government’s Digital Infrastructure Minister, Julia Lopez, which makes “five demands” following appeals from over 200 residents (although we could only see four demands listed in his statement).
Beverley and Holderness MP, Graham Stuart, said:
“Residents are fed up with the poles nightmare. I’m against these ugly and unnecessary poles, and it’s disappointing that the situation hasn’t changed since September last year.
Most residents don’t want to see these poles close to their front gardens, even if they are desperate for cheaper broadband bills.
My conversations with ministers are ongoing, but the people of Beverley and Holderness demand action now, and I will continue to press the Government to provide that action.”
The Key Demands
➤ He asked for the Department for Science and Technology to remind KCOM of its responsibilities to provide fair access to its ducts. While KCOM has contended that it does provide access, MS3 and Connexin claim that it is economically unviable to use their ducts when compared with Openreach’s pricing, which they use elsewhere in the country.
➤ He has requested that the Department create a code of conduct for the erection of broadband poles, so that they are not erected in egregious places like a few feet in front of peoples’ front rooms.
➤ He has requested a review into permitted development, which is what allows the poles to be erected. Graham contends that while poles could be appropriate in areas where there is no economic case for ducts, in areas where they already exist sharing of infrastructure should be the only available option to network builders.
➤ He has also requested that the code of conduct in the Electronic Communications Code be made mandatory for network builders to follow. He is concerned that companies have no incentive to engage with the community, and that engagement should be enshrined in the code.
In terms of the first demand, the law does require KCOM to fairly share access to their existing infrastructure, but operators expecting the same level of access, flexibility and affordability as PIA from Openreach will probably run into a problem with the KCOM’s commercial terms. KCOM do make all the right noises on this front, but the reality is that it may take greater intervention from Ofcom to cause a significant shift, and that sort of thing is often a very slow process.
Advertisement
Similarly, the government has already made some recent changes to PD rights and the ECC, but most of those were intended to make it easier for network operators to upgrade and deploy new broadband and mobile infrastructure – not harder. Any further changes to legislation could take 1.5-3 years to reach the implementation phase.
As we’ve said before, local authorities are limited in their powers to stop such work and the UK government remains unlikely to pay much heed to any attempts to restrict it. This is because any limitations on such builds would seriously damage their own targets for digital infrastructure under Project Gigabit (i.e. “nationwide” (c.99%) gigabit broadband coverage by 2030).
Lest we also forget that quite a lot of people would still be happy to see poles if it meant they could access more affordable full fibre broadband, but such voices are often drowned out by vocal campaigners. On the other hand, there’s a General Election looming and, as similar complaints grow, politicians may need to do more than merely play lip service to the issue. Suffice to say, there’s a very difficult balancing act to be performed.
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, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« ASA Ban Misleading Full Fibre Claim from UK Wireless ISP 6G Internet
The demands do not look unreasonable.
If there is existing ducting then use it & consider being a good neighbour & don’t erect poles in front of peoples windows.
We would love to have the chance of FTTP around here but I would expect a provider to adhere to basic good neighbour principles. Our eventual installation will mean adding extra cabling to existing poles but if they do need extra poles then placement is not just about the installer convenience.
This often need not be expensive but does involve considering the effect on other people.
It’s all about the details of course but those demands don’t look unreasonable at first glance.
They’re almost certainly nowhere near where the more radicalised campaigners want them to be, however they’re also not the free for all the network builders would obviously prefer, so something for everyone, everything for no-one.
Those demands seem very fair.
They should also be obliged to remove the poles, or enable the council to remove them, if the company goes out of business and the poles are never used.
The rate these AltNets are overbuilding and then calling in Adminstrators, there are going to be abandoned poles and street cabinets all over the place.
Should be a ring-fenced fund to remove the infrastructure if the provider is liquidated. Not a guarantee but it’s supposed to be part of obtaining code powers.
@XGS
It also raises the question if a network using Openreach PIA goes into liquidation and no one wants to take it on who pays to remove it.
Surely the company would just be bought by someone else? It’s an easy way in for the like of Sky/VM etc.
Removing it should form part of the liquidation if it goes entirely out of business: there should be as I said a ring-fenced fund in case of company failure as part of Ofcom Code powers being granted.
What lily-livered rubbish! All broadband poles should be deported to Rwanda! Vote Reform!
Graham’s looking quite sullen in the compo face photo, likely as he’s almost almost certainly going to lose his seat at the General Election.
Good riddance!
It’s inconvenience vs utility. For example if you didn’t have electricity and erecting poles would give you electricity then most people would accept poles, but if you already have gigabit access underground then the case for poles is harder to justify. Clearly KCOM are as dominant locally as Openreach are nationally and therefore should have the same restrictions imposed on them.
Open up access to Kingston and VirginO2 duct assets on same terms as BT’s and the ridiculous pole rush pretty much disappears.
Road beautification is going on in my street . . first time in 38 years . . . renewing kerbstones, making cross-overs official and replacing the tarmac pavements with bitmac . . . so that must mean fibre’s going to be installed within 3 months of the contractor completing the job ?
Either that, or someone is just burning an end of year surplus so it doesn’t get clawed back.
Indeed,
KCOM are an easy whipping boy in all of this. However, living in close proximity to a lot of this activity, I can tell you that the altnets aren’t ‘whiter than white’.
For example, MS3 told Hedon town council they would be deploying underground. They subsequently went ahead with poles – stating that KCOM duct access pricing was economically unviable – only to then admit that they hadn’t even applied for using duct access in the first place (all confirmed in the Hull Live article with MS3 CEO, in which he also rowed back on blaming KCOM)
Quite how a business can determine what is/isn’t economically viable without pricing up the options is a mystery.
I suspect this is more to do with investors wanting as much physical assets to own, paid for via CAPEX, rather than commit to long term OPEX costs in sharing the infrastructure. More to sell off when they get absorbed.
They don’t need to apply to see whether or not it’s viable. The pricing is readily available and hidden away on KCOM’s pricing site.
Heya Hull Lad.
Ballpark pricing even without applying widely is available. Terms and conditions without applying are available without sending in the requests. The MS3 CEO, wisely, didn’t want to get into a shouting match with KCom, he’s kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place.
MS3 have had previous exposure to KCom’s passive access a while back. They may have erred in telling Hedon they were going to deploy underground, no idea.
I’ve seen more than one person in your locality comment on investors wanting as many physical assets as possible to own. Okay. Please explain to me in that case why MS3 are using a tiny fraction of the amount of poles in Openreach areas. The exact same argument on owning physical assets would apply.
The reason KCom are an ‘easy whipping boy’ is the huge discrepancy between the amount of construction in the area they are the incumbent versus Openreach areas. Same companies building their networks in dramatically different ways and the only variable changing is whether the incumbent is Openreach or KCom and, hence, terms, conditions, pricing, etc, of physical infrastructure access.
I could bang on but am hoping this starts a dialogue and you respond: thanks!
I only count four demands?
Where is the fifth one?
Graham Stuart will say whatever is needed to try and save his seat, I don’t believe he has done half of what he claims.
Telegraph poles are neither here nor there for me. Do people complain about street lamps and trees too?
Personally, I’d rather the complete pedestrianisation of residential streets. Parked cars are much more of an eyesore.