Ofcom UK Investigate IX Wireless for Visual Impact of 15m Broadband Pole
The UK telecoms regulator, Ofcom, has today opened a new investigation into wireless broadband operator IX Wireless (supported by UK ISP 6Gi / Opus Broadband), which will examine whether the network provider failed in its duty to minimise the visual impact of a 15-metre metal mast / pole when it was installed in Rochdale during 2023.
The operator, which holds an aspiration to cover 250,000 UK premises with their new network (here), is currently building their hybrid fibre and wireless broadband network across several towns in the North West of England, such as Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Nelson, Accrington, Thornton-Cleveleys, Fleetwood, Blackpool, Tameside and Oldham etc.
However, the “up to” 15-metre-high metal poles (masts) that they build don’t always go down well with residents in all the areas where they build (many people often highlight their negative visual appearance), although in being a wireless service they only need to deploy a smaller number in order to cover a wide area.
Advertisement
Poles can often be built using Permitted Development (PD) rights and that means they don’t have to go through the usual planning process (i.e. they can pop up quite quickly, often without all residents getting much of a say). But the Electronic Communications Code (ECC), which reflects a set of rights that are designed to facilitate the installation and maintenance of such networks, does still impose some general requirements.
In this case, Ofcom appears to be looking at a single deployment of an IXW pole in Rochdale during 2023, and whether or not the operator correctly considered the need to “minimise the impact on the visual amenity” of nearby properties during their installation.
Ofcom Statement – CW/01294/04/25
Ofcom has today opened an investigation into IX Wireless’ compliance with its obligations under the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003/2533 (as amended) (‘the Regulations’).
The Electronic Communications Code is designed to facilitate the installation and maintenance of electronic communications networks across the United Kingdom. As a designated “Code Operator” IX Wireless benefits from certain rights under the Code but is also subject to conditions and restrictions when installing telecommunications apparatus.
Among other requirements, IX Wireless must, so far as reasonably practicable, minimise the impact on the visual amenity of properties when installing an electronic communications apparatus (Regulation 3(3)(a)).
Ofcom’s investigation will examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that IX Wireless has failed to comply with these Regulations when installing a 15-metre piece of metal infrastructure on a residential street in Rochdale in 2023.
We will gather further information and publish an update to our investigation in due course.
Ofcom’s powers in this area remain quite limited (here) and investigations like this often take a long time to run their course (they’ve also been investigating Brsk’s deployment of poles since Sept 2024 – here), which means that we might have to wait until late 2025 or even 2026 before a final outcome is published.
Network operators will no doubt still be watching the regulator’s investigation very closely, since it has the potential to set new precedents for their own deployments of similar infrastructure. On the other hand, IXW’s large metal poles/masts are visually quite different, as well as being much larger, than your typical c.9 metre high wooden telegraph / telecoms poles (i.e. any ruling may not be directly translatable to the latter).
Advertisement
Finally, it’s worth noting that the ISPA and INCA recently published new ‘Best Practice Guidance’ for gigabit broadband operators that are building new poles as part of their UK network expansions. The guidance aims to support the Government’s goal of “ending the deployment of unnecessary telegraph poles” (here), not least by requiring providers to engage more closely with communities before they build (details here).
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.
« O2’s Recycle Service for UK Business Saves 45,000 Devices from Landfill
GoFibre Expands Full Fibre Broadband to Ladykirk and Norham »
Advertisement
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 and display names can be almost anything you like (provided they do not contain offensive language or impersonate a real persons legal name). By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email 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.
Hi Mark,
The case in question is next to my house , It also part of a separate planning enforcement case with the Planning inspectorate (IX were told to take it down but appealed)
I have a lot of info on IX , would be good if you could either update the article or do a new one.
Thanks
I don’t understand how a tiny company that will only serve a very small number of people across the country with FWB can get permission to put up so many poles? Surely, equipment for such a small provider should be placed on existing poles/infrastructure that is already there and not causing a problem.
Probably because every pole they put up will be classed as an asset in their financial books and I have no doubt that IX Wireless will be influencing or deciding upon the valuation of those assets.
This then allows them to borrow money based on the assets they have.
There is now this business is sustainable.
They also use wooden poles, in my area south of Bury on one street they’ve basically installed a wooden pole across the road from every BT pole so the wires just criss cross all the way down the street and one 100m section of street ends up having about 7 or 8 wooden poles in total. It’s idiotic.
They did the same in Darwen. They have huge wooden telegraph poles that look much taller than the usual Openreach ones. They’re operating in that area under the name Opus since they got slapped down for trying to call their Internet “6G”.
Here’s an example.. https://maps.app.goo.gl/LyNKEAVL6PemjP2AA?g_st=ac
I’ve used 6G Internet aka IX aka Opus and honestly they’re terrible. Poor customer service poor signal. Refused there was a fault till I got the ombudsman involved. Didn’t fix the issue just was able to cancel without early termination charges (note I had already paid for several months of service). I welcome any investigation in to them but also would argue that false advertisement should also be acknowledged as they claimed i could get 100 mbps download speeds and I probably only got that once. I believe there was no minimum speed guaranteed such as BT, Vodafone etc.
We have triplicate telegraph poles in many streets in Hull , Cottingham and other towns and villages in the East Riding. This severely affects the visual amenity of many home environments and communities . It also impacts accessibility. OFCOM knows full well of these facts in our region and elsewhere . Government also are well aware of the significant overbuild affecting many regions and yet little effective action to stop it. Yes there has been best practice codes written by INCA but no mandatory direction which will do little to halt these overbuilds . Since permitted development rights were given to code operators in 2022 the exploitation of these rights have been rife . Residents rights waived and urban communities affected by these significant blights on their streets
Inaccurate reporting and not for the first time regarding IX Wireless.
The masts DO require planning consent (prior approval) and IX Wireless have been installing scores of transmitter masts across the region without seeking prior approval.
There’s a sometimes-tedious line between when they’re allowed to define as a mast or pole, with respect to IXW. They deploy a number of different tall structures, which can often be used in more than one way, but most of it has thus far been allowed, although some of it has been in dispute before over this very point (I recall they did have to remove a few).
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2024/05/bolton-council-take-enforcement-action-against-ix-wireless-broadband-poles.html
Mark johnson your reply to corpuset shows extremely clearly ,why the telecommunications industry and some of the reporting is a law unto themselves .The masts IX wireless erect need prior approval and yet they continually flout regulations
Mark, there is a clear distinction (in planning terms and in legal obligations) between a pole which is used to carry/hoist cable over the highway AND a transmitter masts which is significantly larger in scale, different in design, is accompanied with fairly large sized cabinets either side and antennae attached to the top of the mast.
It is NOT “tedious” to residents who have a 15m steel structure installed mm from their brickwork or directly in front of their windows.
The prior approval process is an instrument to allow council officers, councillors and residents to object (or support) these types of structures.
IX Wireless know full well what their legal obligations are but rather than risk the chance of a local authority denying them consent they have chosen to adopt a widescale bypassing of the prior approval process and installed the transmitters whereever IX Wireless choose to put them.
Councillors, council officers and residents have not been informed or involved in any process to discuss these locations.
IX Wireless have also acted deviously by installing their transmitter masts in two stages (attaching the antennae a few weeks later) so in order to afford some credibility to their argument that they transmitters are “only poles” and therefore do not need prior approval consent.