Government Calls on UK Broadband Operators to Limit Poles
The UK Digital Infrastructure Minister, Julia Lopez, has published a new letter to “telecoms firms” (Virgin Media, Openreach and KCOM etc.) that calls for them to “limit installation of telegraph poles” when deploying new fibre broadband networks because they risk upsetting communities by “inappropriately or unnecessarily throwing up new infrastructure.”
Network operators like poles because they’re quick and cost-effective to build, 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.
Suffice to say that poles, which are already a common sight across much of the UK, form a key part of how network operators are choosing to deploy new full fibre (FTTP) networks. The government, driven by its targets for expanding gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure, has also facilitated this by cutting red tape to help make such work as easy as possible.
Advertisement
However, over the past couple of years’ we’ve reported on a notable rise in complaints about new poles, particularly from places like East Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. Such gripes typically highlight their negative visual appearance, as well as concerns about exposure to damage from major storms, the lack of effective prior consultation, the duplication of existing infrastructure or engineers that fail to follow safety rules while building etc.
The key change today is that the government, which is perhaps being mindful of a looming General Election, has adopted a more proactive approach to localised concerns by writing a new letter that calls on telecoms companies to “curb” the installation of new poles. In fact, we covered a lot of this yesterday in a much more extensive article (here), which helps to give the wider context to today’s development (I don’t want to repeat all that).
Digital Infrastructure Minister, Julia Lopez, said:
“Telegraph poles are a key piece of infrastructure bringing faster connectivity to communities and businesses across the country. Most telecoms companies are doing a fantastic job in delivering that connectivity with the support of those communities, by sharing existing infrastructure and taking into account surroundings when putting up new poles.
But we know that there are some firms that are losing that vital community support by inappropriately or unnecessarily throwing up new infrastructure.
I have today written to operators asking them to do whatever it takes to share existing infrastructure. We have already made a number of changes to the law to make it easier for them to do so – including allowing operators to fly lines from poles owned by other providers and sharing underground ducts. We reserve the right to take further action if things do not improve and will be discussing next steps with Ofcom.”
The full letter has been pasted at the bottom of this article and we’ve highlighted some of the key points below.
Key Points of the Letter
1. The minister asks that companies do ‘everything possible’ to share existing telegraph poles before deciding to build new ones.
2. The minister warns that any companies failing to comply with the regulations can lead Ofcom to investigate and take enforcement action on the operator.
3. The minister has advised new infrastructure should only be built above ground when sharing existing infrastructure or installing lines underground is not viable.
4. The minister warns operators that new telegraph poles should only be installed after ensuring appropriate community engagement has taken place and that the siting of new infrastructure will not cause obstructions to traffic or unduly impact the visual amenity of the local area.
5. The minister has requested the regulator to provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to raise complaints, as well as asking for Ofcom’s support in tackling the challenge.
On point 1 and 3, most network operators would probably say they already do everything possible to share existing poles and ducts, since that’s a lot more cost-efficient than building new stuff. But local restrictions, as well as any limitations imposed by existing operators on such infrastructure, mean that it’s not always possible, and sometimes no alternatives exist.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, point 2 sounds strong, but doesn’t say anything new. Ofcom has yet to take any enforcement action related to poles or even investigate a specific complaint. This is in no small part because a lot of the complaints people have raised don’t strictly breach the existing guidelines, which are fairly flexible. But it will be interesting to see if the regulator now takes a more proactive interest.
Point 4 is likely to be one of the most contentious, since at present network operators only need to give very minimal prior notice before a pole is deployed, such as by sticking a notice on a nearby street light (common) or sending out a mailshot ahead of time. In terms of “appropriate community engagement“, the operators would no doubt say they already do this, although the existing code isn’t particularly strict and how you define whether a pole will “unduly impact the visual amenity of the local area” can be quite a challenge – often coloured by personal perception (subjective).
For example, some people might say that deploying poles in streets that haven’t had them before would “unduly impact the visual amenity of the local area“, but often you might not be able to create an economically viable model for the area without them and that risks reversing efforts to tackle the digital divide. The ambiguity in this area quickly becomes tedious for everybody.
Extract – Code of Practice and Protocols for New Poles
Where new poles are to be installed the Code Operator should place a site notice (coinciding with notification to the relevant authorities) in as close proximity as possible to the proposed apparatus indicating to nearby residents the intention to install a pole, and the proposed location. The location of such notices should be discussed with the relevant authorities at the initial engagement meeting.
If an appropriate place to site a notice is not available, another means of informing residents may be discussed and agreed upon. This could take the form of a temporary notice at the proposed site, placed on a post similar to those used by estate agents. Alternatively, another means of informing residents may be agreed upon such as a mailshot.
Notices should state the name and contact details of the Code Operator. In National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural beauty, the Code Operator should discuss new pole locations with the relevant National Park Authority or AONB Partnership at an early stage to identify opportunities to minimise any adverse landscape impact.
Next, we come to point 5, where the government seems to be trying to help local authorities in understanding how to make related complaints to Ofcom and for the regulator to perhaps become a bit more proactive in investigating such concerns. But at the end of the day, this all seems to be mostly reiterating and underlining what the existing rules already say.
Advertisement
ISPA Chair, Steve Leighton, said:
“Upgrading the broadband network to full fibre gigabit broadband is a national priority, one that will deliver significant economic and social benefits across the UK.
We understand the Minister’s concerns and wherever possible our members are using underground ducts or existing infrastructure to build their networks. However, this is not viable everywhere and that is why our members may need to use poles, in line with current planning rules which allow their use through permitted development.
The sector will continue to engage proactively with government on this issue. Industry data shows that infrastructure sharing is widely used by a range of different providers, and the industry is exploring ways of unlocking further options. We must continue to ensure that we strike the right balance so that our members can build broadband networks that will enable and serve our society for decades to come.”
An Openreach spokesperson said:
“We agree with the Minister about sharing access to ducts and poles. We do this already and, since 2011, more than 1.9 million of our poles and 260,000 kilometres of our underground duct have been used by other 169 builders to extend their own networks, connecting more than 700,000 customers. It’s been a great success for the industry and something we think should be replicated by other providers on comparable commercial terms.”
The government’s letter also specifically touches on the issue of infrastructure sharing in the Hull area via KCOM’s network, where they encourage the incumbent to play fair. But at present, network operators expecting the same level of access, flexibility and affordability as they get from Openreach have run into problems with KCOM’s sadly confidential commercial terms, although some progress was made yesterday (here).
Finally, the letter makes clear that the government intend to “revise” the existing Cabinet Siting and Pole Siting Code of Practice, which will update the guidance – seemingly within the existing legislation – to “make sure that communities feel engaged in the deployment of new broadband infrastructure, whilst still allowing operators to continue deploying their networks.” We expect more meetings and better notifications to be the result, which may add some extra costs and time to network builds.
Copy of DSIT’s New Letter
To all fixed-line operators,
Fixed-line broadband infrastructure sharing in England
I am writing to you about the use of telegraph poles for fixed-line broadband deployment, which is generating public concern in some parts of the country.
A number of MPs have brought to my attention the frustrations of communities they represent over the duplication of overhead fibre networks. They have advised that their constituents feel they have no control over how infrastructure is deployed in their local area, and this can negatively affect the overall perception of full fibre deployment.
While these concerns are most prominent in a small number of areas in England, I have seen complaints from residents across the country.
Incumbents with Significant Market Power
As you will no doubt be aware, Openreach and KCOM are two of the main telecommunications operators in England, and their position means that Ofcom previously found that Openreach and KCOM have significant market power (SMP) in their respective markets.
Ofcom found that Openreach has significant market power in the passive infrastructure market. This led to the implementation of a Duct and Poles Access remedy, which requires Openreach to share its ducts and poles with any other operators, subject to a regulated fee structure.
Government regards the introduction of a Duct and Poles Access remedy as a significant success. It has allowed for many new entrants to the telecoms market to start up and scale up, which has led to significant and growing levels of infrastructure competition, including in rural and remote areas of the UK. In turn, that competition has led to rapidly expanding coverage of gigabit-capable broadband in the UK, even as consumer prices have stayed relatively low.
As you will know, the conditions are different in the Hull area, where Ofcom found that KCOM holds significant market power.
The approach taken by Ofcom in the Hull area is to facilitate new entrants’ use of KCOM’s network by improving existing wholesale local access arrangements and by requiring KCOM to make reasonable physical adjustments to its network to facilitate access. It also continues to ensure that access is on fair and reasonable terms, including with regards to charges.
Ofcom also recognises that other operators may seek space in KCOM’s network of underground ducts and chambers to deploy a fixed access network in the Hull Area to compete with KCOM in the market. Similarly, other operators may request space on KCOM’s telegraph poles. Ofcom states that it considers that such requests could be reasonable under the condition it is imposing. In such cases, KCOM would effectively be required to provide the relevant form of physical infrastructure access as soon as reasonably practicable and on fair and reasonable terms, conditions and charges for the deployment of fixed network technologies to fixed locations in the Hull area.
Infrastructure sharing and maintaining broad support for the digital connectivity agenda
This Government is committed to ensuring there is a competitive broadband market so that everyone can receive the connectivity they need at an affordable price. We have also committed to delivering gigabit-capable connections to 85% of UK premises by 2025 with 99% of premises connected by 2030. The work operators across the UK undertake is crucial in achieving these ambitious goals.
I also recognise the important part telegraph poles can play in delivering efficient and cost-effective coverage and connectivity to communities. They enable infrastructure deployment without costly and disruptive roadworks, or where existing infrastructure cannot be used, leading to greater choice for consumers.
However, we want to make sure that while deployment happens efficiently, it also takes into account the impact these installations can have on communities and the environment. For this reason, the Government places great importance on the sharing of existing infrastructure.
Indeed, the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 place requirements on operators to share apparatus where practicable; and new measures introduced by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 make it easier for operators to upgrade and share the use of existing underground ducts and telegraph poles.
I am sure you will also be aware of the existence of the Cabinet Siting and Pole Siting Code of Practice 2016, which provides guidance on ways operators can ensure that telegraph pole and cabinet installations are placed appropriately, and that local authorities and communities are engaged with regarding proposed installations.
In addition to the measures set out above, the Communications (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2016 give you the right to access infrastructure operators’ physical infrastructure, such as electricity poles, to deploy networks, subject to certain exemptions.
All of the above measures have been put in place to allow fast and efficient network deployment, whilst minimising the impact on communities.
In light of increasing public concern, it is more important than ever for you to ensure that you are doing everything possible to explore the possibility of sharing existing infrastructure and underground network deployment before making the decision to use telegraph poles. New telegraph poles should only be in cases where installing lines underground is not reasonably practicable, and only after ensuring that appropriate community engagement has taken place and that the siting of new infrastructure will not cause obstructions to traffic or unduly impact the visual amenity of the local area.
I firmly believe that by sharing existing infrastructure where possible, through proactive local engagement and considerate placement of any necessary new installations, we can achieve Government’s connectivity goals and bring people fast, reliable connectivity across the UK, whilst maintaining widespread public support.
For this reason, I have asked my officials to consider what steps my Department can take to revise the existing Cabinet Siting and Pole Siting Code of Practice.
The intention behind revising this Code of Practice is to develop a refreshed set of guidelines which makes sure that communities feel engaged in the deployment of new broadband infrastructure, whilst still allowing operators to continue deploying their networks, bringing faster connectivity and greater choice to consumers.
Ultimately, the intention is that the new guidelines, once published, will fall under the scope of regulation 17 of the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003. My officials will be in touch with you directly in due course regarding this work and I hope you will participate where possible.
I wanted to express once again my gratitude for the work you are doing in helping deliver our connectivity ambitions. I believe that the sharing of existing physical infrastructure where possible will be key in ensuring that this work can progress at the necessary pace and with the strong backing of communities.
Yours sincerely,
Julia Lopez MP
Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure
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.
« KCOM Claim Progress on Broadband Infrastructure Sharing in Hull UK
Latest UK ISP News
- FTTP (6053)
- BT (3649)
- Politics (2729)
- Business (2444)
- Openreach (2412)
- Building Digital UK (2336)
- Mobile Broadband (2157)
- FTTC (2086)
- Statistics (1914)
- 4G (1827)
- Virgin Media (1776)
- Ofcom Regulation (1591)
- Fibre Optic (1471)
- Wireless Internet (1464)
- 5G (1417)
Guess this explains why KCOM are playing nice too then, eh!
This will result in FTTP costing more therefore not reaching as many people.
The way I see it, if a street doesn’t want poles, they can all band together and pay the additional cost of trenching
Andrew, that would be a fair compromise I suppose as long as it was true cost and had no additional profit added.
The trouble with that is, that Bad Telecom and Vermin Media have creative accounting ways to make that price as high as possible. If there is an opportunity, they will take it as no-one there to dispute and question the quote.
After so many tax payer handouts via various programmes, why should they too.
Do your infrastructure properly by using your own capital like most other businesses do.
Micro trenching reduces the cost massively. How about the government using some of the minor offending prisoners to dig trenches? Would also works as a prison deterrent if they knew hard labour for community benefit was involved. Telecom company would pay a contribution for policing of it.
Better still new poles should only be permitted if an area is not already covered by an existing FTTP network. Once it is then you will either be required to used existing infrastructure or dig your own trenches. All passive infrastructure should be subject to the same PIA rules as Openreach.
Spot on Andrew.
The target is to reach all properties with fibre. If poles are the only viable option for an area due to limited / damaged or no existing infrastructure, then banding together to share the costs among the effected residents is a fair compromise!
Give them the choice and if they choose not to chip in then poles it is!
@anonymous- thats assumming you have a minimun clearance of 500mm from existing services for the entire route, else that micro trenching is likely to cut through other burried assests and will be in breach of HSG47. Fibre to the prem is no good if the trencher has cut off the streets power supply!
Its funny when it comes to build how all the lay people come out with how it should be done, as if all options haven’t already been considered. Micro trenching will still be more costly, causes more disruption and carries more risk than poles. I have been involved with both. Its horses for cources and unfortunately our footways are very congested.
Anyway, in a lot of cases its the fact that BT/OR chose direct buried copper. I’m not sure that more direct buried cable is the answer. Duct and poles are more future proof, especially in the event of network damage.
I’d rather have my 5G connection than numerous poles put up in my street!
Great thing . poles are ugly
I’m all for the rollout of full fibre, but an observation I must comment on.
Nearby where I live, there is a very nice little village that is well looked after with some expensive homes.
Multiple providers have put up their own poles, so either side of the street you have poles, with wires everywhere.
Houses are only on one side of the road, with fields on the other, so it does look pretty bad. It somewhat reminds me of India.
No one wants this crap was always about brown envelopes to Tories.
Not single mention of Virgin Media opening their infrastructure to be used. Typical.
Their HFC network is stuffed with coaxial cables so likely no space.
VM also paid for their infrastructure (under individual cable companies that combined) and didn’t inherit one paid by tax payer.
BT’s shareholders paid the price the government desired for those assets.
VM’s predecessors also had government assistance in the form of guaranteed regional monopolies and BT sufficiently knobbled to give them the best possible chance.
If it’s all about “inheritance” – should BT not be able to reject PIA in any infrastructure that was installed or modernised post privatisation?
Agreed, the argument that openreach was public owned doesn’t stand anymore, as roughly 60% of that network has been changed or built since then, since alt nets use government grants its only fair they all start sharing
Agreed, the argument that openreach was public owned doesn’t stand anymore, as roughly 60% of that network has been changed or built since then, since alt nets use government grants its only fair they all start sharing
I believe that the terms of BDUK contracts may prohibit the use of shared poles.
Perhaps the Government should have sent this letter to BDUK as well.
Not true – contracts are available online, do you have a source/link to this claim?
It’s the same with the electricity network, everyone wants cheaper green power but don’t want the overheads to move from source generation to where its required.
In my small market town there are new estates where there are no poles at all. There are also some very old terrace houses build in late 1800’s which have electricity delivered by pole. If you think that telecom poles are ugly, you should see the thicker electric ones.
There was an estate built in the 1980’s-1990’s. The older part had poles, but the newer part didn’t. A few poles have been added for FTTP which still caused a minor grumble even though the area has much worse
Why don’t all telecoms and media companies such as cable, Sky and virgin etc club together in laying ducting then all could share and be competitive at the same time, sounds a better idea for future infrastructure, the idea of installing wooden poles is a massive step backwards in terms of progress and if other suppliers use the same poles, I can only imagine it looking like parts of India or some third world country, that would be impossible to reverse.
Exactly.
Wouldn’t have had this problem if they had let regional contracts, where the successful bidder could have been given exclusive rights to existing infrastructure.
Wonder what happens in world leading economy of Singapore bet they are not farting about with the “One-man-and-his-dog” installer model like the UK is.
Please tell me you’re not trying to compare a city-state with an actual country that is many orders of magnitude larger in geographical size.
Julia ‘lip service’ Lopez will soon booted out of office, along with the majority of her omnishambolic BlueKIP colleagues.
Good riddance!
“to make sure that communities feel engaged in the deployment of new broadband infrastructure”, my as well call it the NIMBY’s charter.
I worked for a large water firm 20 years ago.
We got pressure from the government and councils to close small sewage works for land for housing but trying to replace the capacity saw all the protests come out and planning permission refused.
And we wonder why there’s sewage in the rivers.
In Aylesbury there’s a shortage of drinking water and a new abstraction point is being objective to, it’s baffling how people don’t want water.
Anyway on topic OR has form in walking away from areas, harringay and Kensington and Chelsea got put at the back of the queue when the FTTC cabinets were objected to and councils like Sheringham were promoted when they welcomed them.
So in places like Southport where there’s protests and road blocking going on they could find OR deeming the area uneconomical and walking away.
Also we have OR finished their FTTP rollout in my area and cityfibre still has months to go with digging up the town causing major disruption on a lot of major junctions.
Make PIA operators give reciprocal access to their ducts and the problem pretty much disappears.
I see all the experts are out in force in the comments again.
HaHa – hear it all the time.
Love reading all the comments, you can tell who has knowledge of telecoms and who doesn’t
Telcoms is the industry where all the rejects end up.
It doesn’t require ‘experts’ – it’s common sense.
Only people who want 5G is Telcoms and spotty, overweight gamers.
Should this be extended to the power distribution companies as well? We have new altnet poles along one side of the road simply because the power company allegedly refused access to their fairly new tall poles of the other side of the road (which OR already use for copper)!
I can pick a spot just along the road where 26 wooden poles are visible – 11 kV 3-phase power, 230 V power, OR copper, and altnet fibre. Can anybody beat that…?
PS – they are 230 V poles that aren’t being shared – nobody is suggesting hanging other cables off 11 kV!
Would be helpful. Telcos have to be licensed by individual DNOs, and they can refuse offer any license whatsoever
@Mark
I understand (from an Openreach employee) that it is no longer permitted for electricity and telecoms to use the same poles. Apparently Openreach are now removing their cables from poles carrying electricity cables.
That’s a lot of rural premises stuffed then. There are a lot of shared 230 V / OR poles around here, and if they ever upgrade to fibre, that’s more new poles, not fewer…
‘…siting of new infrastructure will not cause obstructions to traffic’. Would that be traffic on the path or verge by any chance?
A pole was the only way I could get internet. And there were loads already so jog on Gov
And where existing underground conduits exist, with spare capacity, didn’t the Telecoms Act 1984 (Section 98 ?) impose an obligation for it to be shared between service providers ?
So all HMG has got to do is enforce the law.
No. No it didn’t.
Complain about poles, don’t get broadband.
Complain about no broadband – then you can have it if you pay the costs of delivering it through underground trenches.
It’s the same nonsense with “oh I don’t want a mobile mast”, “the mobile coverage here is terrible, they should do something about it”
I don’know anyone who wants faster broadband to devalue their house with a pole outside their front door.
Telcoms is dying, let it die and Goverment to run communications. This would immediately resolve the sharing disputes.
The industry is full of plonkers that should be stacking supermarket shelves.
Telcos aren’t dying far from it, highly doubt poles would devalue anything going forward as the housing market is already out of the price range of most people.
Those who don’t want FTTP (the majority, I believe, but am happy to be corrected) could also argue, why should they pay for a rushed national rollout of FTTP that benefits only those that do want it. It’s all ISP customers that will pay at the end of the day.
# Right Said Fred
Oh No ! Mother told be never to compare a City State with a large geographical entity like the UK, even if Singapore punches= above-its-weight like a large geographical entity.
800 miles end-to-end and 400 miles side-to-side, at greatest extent, is nothing compared to other countries.
Just as well the joint-stock companies who pioneered the railways in this country didn’t take that attitude.
They’d have laughed at the current attempts to thread a 1mm fibre through the eye of the needle up a pole, when they moved mountains to build the railways, with an economy and capital market only a mere fraction of what it is today.
Over 90% of the living units in Singapore are in MDUs: apartments/flats. It cannot be compared to the UK in terms of broadband for that reason alone.
On the matter of its economy you’re the guy who wrote this just over a week ago: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2024/03/rural-uk-broadband-isp-gigaclear-sees-exit-of-ceo-and-cfo.html#comment-302650
‘Some of the installation cock-ups might be avoided if more of the contractors’ men had complete mastery of the English Language and intended to become permanent residents… ‘
29.9% of Singapore’s population are non-citizens and not permanent residents.
Saw you support protests against infrastructure. If the people protesting against poles here did so in Singapore they’d be arrested: protest is illegal besides in a single place.
While nominally a democracy a single party has ruled Singapore for the entire duration of its existence as a sovereign nation, 64 years and counting. Projects get started and stay started, they don’t get cut to pieces at a politician’s whim.
Singapore has virtually no trade barriers or tariffs. It imports nearly all its food so no agricultural sector to protect and lower barriers keep prices down. That is what some Brexity politicians said they wanted.
Nearly 80% of the population live in subsidised housing, so there’s not a landlord class rinsing the young and younger Singaporeans aren’t going broke having to pay tons for housing because NIMBYs won’t let it get built.
So: high immigration, lots of immigrant workers, low trade barriers, not relying on flipping houses for money they get on with building them to hold things sensible rather than ripping off youth, stuff actually gets built with spurious complaints disregarded rather than being appeased at taxpayer’s expense, and much higher population density than the allegedly ‘full’ UK.
How do you think that’ll go down here? Some outraged by house prices, some construction, some immigration, what’s left of some of our industries toast.
One thing we do do as well or better than Singapore is tax avoidance and money laundering though. Whether it be direct or facilitating it.
TL;DR we aren’t Singapore. We never will be. Compare London to Singapore, that’s far more reasonable.
I’m currently experiencing some of the superior service that the telecoms industry and local authorities can provide . . .
. . .the local council decided now was the time of the (Financial ?) year to refurbish and beautify the public footpaths down my road.
So they started about two weeks ago removing the perfectly serviceable tarmac pavement surface and lifting the granite kerbstones (Again, in good condition, all the needed was a pressure wash and recementing).
They arrived at the section of pavement outside my house this week. No issues, until I noticed yesterday that the council’s contractor had removed the inspection cover to BT jointing chamber in the footpath. Not only had they removed the cover but they had removed the steel frame in which the inspection cover sits.The frame, of course, is mounted on top of the brick chamber.
With the cover placed aside, rain water and surface run-off water has now partially filled the chamber, submerging some of the cabling and some fibre (The installation of the latter was news to me).
Reported it to the Council Highways last night. Of course no come back.
Reported it to Open Reach, who undertook to send an engineer to inspect it within 4 hours and then report back to me – nothing heard
Really impressive.
And the leader of the council is selling himself as the “Mr Mender” of the borough, having comissioned £10 million of similar work over the borough – and you thought the councils were up against it financially.Think again.
When I think that only last week that I had to report a collapsed man-hole cover, measuring at least 2 foot x 2 foot, in the centre of a very busy main A-road in Buckinghamshire, connecting Amersham and Beaconsfield, something which could have caused a major accident, especially at night on this unlit country A-road and they came back to be saying that their contractor had made a temporary repair and the permanent repair would be made when they had the money to do so.
Money is concentrated in the wrong hands
Money resides in the wrong hands
Roads are handled by a variety of agencies
Local roads and paths are town/District councils
A roads county councils
Very major roads possibly the highways agency
So very easy to see how responsibity could be from different agencies.
Of course it’s less than a month from the tax year so budgets need spending otherwise they will be cleared and possibly less money handed out next year for underspending.
Was the chamber that was opened behind a barrier at all times while open?
Let the locals have a say
If there’s problems like in Southport where the locals and council are sypposedly not in favour of poles have a local referendum and see what the real mood of the public is.
Of course they run the risk of being stuck with FTTC or even ADSL but at least everyone gets a say.
We already have broadband through VM which is fine (and underground) plus the engineers who knocked on our door told us they could put the cable underground but it would be more “hassle” for them. As far as I am concerned that is their problem, they shouldn’t be sticking up poles just because it is easier for them or they are too lazy or cheap to put the cables underground as they have everywhere else. If they aren’t capable they shouldn’t have taken the government contract.