Parliament Publishes Useful UK Summary of Rules for Broadband Poles
The House of Commons Library within the UK Parliament has published a useful new document that helps to summarise and explain some of the core rules around the deployment of poles (telegraph poles) for broadband network expansion. In recent years, these have often become a point of some contention for communities that don’t want them.
The deployment of poles (usually made of wood, but sometimes also metal) to run new overhead fibre optic or copper cables is a common practice across the UK (over 4 million already exist). This is because poles are quick and cost-effective to build (several times cheaper than trenching), can be deployed in areas where there may be no space or access agreement to safely put new underground cables, are less disruptive (avoiding the noise, access restrictions and damage to pavements of street works) and can usually be built under Permitted Development (PD) rights.
However, a lot of people find them ugly, particularly when deployed in areas that haven’t had them before, which over the past few years has – in some parts of the country (often areas that have previously only had underground infrastructure) – triggered strong anti-pole protests.
Advertisement
The new Labour-led UK government, much like the old Conservative-led one, last year responded to this by calling on broadband operators to “end the deployment of unnecessary telegraph poles” (here), to “share existing infrastructure when installing broadband cables as the default approach” and pledged to “revise” existing guidance.
The industry recently responded to this by introducing new ‘Best Practice Guidance for Poles’ to help tackle the problem, which generally requires network operators to have greater engagement with and respect for community wishes. The government are currently assessing the impact of that before deciding whether further action may be required. But it should be noted that many operators have since had to scale-back their fibre deployments due to wider economic and competitive pressures (i.e. there are now fewer complaints being raised).
Nevertheless, Thinkbroadband has spotted that the House of Commons Library just published a new document, which is designed to help MPs understand the rules around telegraph poles for UK broadband providers and any relevant legislation. The information doesn’t say anything that regular readers of ISPreview won’t already know, but it does serve as quite a useful summary for those who may be seeking some extra background.
Broadband companies and telegraph poles
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/broadband-companies-and-telegraph-poles/
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.
« Fixed UK Broadband Subscribers Predicted to Fall by 250,000 in 2025
Virgin Media O2 UK Agrees New 10-year Renewable Energy Deal »
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.
Nah I’d rather have the noise than the eye-sore horrible metal poles.
All governments are the same, trying to tell people what they should of shouldn’t have. Bring back communities.
Fair enough. The community can either go without or fund the difference between costs of using poles and trenching. Private companies seeking profit make the decision on which one they use, not government.
If communities want government control over streetworks removed I assume that means they want the roads and pavements to be private and are happy to maintain them.
forget Victorian wooden technology poles, the future is fixed wireless broadband beamed from a lesser number of poles, already sited in locations.
No thanks. I’d rather have something fixed for my home, and leave the spectrum free for mobile devices. Fixed wireless speeds are volatile and variable, almost like the days of ADSL and FTTC.
I have overhead powerlines running down my stretch of the road which are owned by National Grid, with BT making use of the to run their copper lines. The problem is that somewhere along the line no other operators can make use of the poles and this seems to be an issue with National Grids rules.
This has resulted in other operators not being able to deploy their fibre, and no incentive for BT to upgrade their copper.
In this, there need to be pressure put on National Grid to allow access to their poles too
Point of clarity–is it National Grid (the high voltage operator), or a Regional Distribution Network Operator that owns these poles (National grid also owns some Regional DNO assets in Wales, Southwest and Midlands)?
The impact may be the same, but need to engage the right organisation for change
The government report yet again gives no guidance on seeking the necessary consent for works from the DCMS through historic England in scheduled monument areas. Or seeking planning permission in areas of specific Interest and near to Listed properties. As We know in Hedon several telegraph poles were installed in a scheduled monument area without gaining consents and works requiring archeological supervision . This is a criminal offence
No need for additional guidance on scheduled monument areas all very clear, from this fine site on the incident you’re probably referring to: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2024/01/ms3-error-sees-broadband-poles-installed-in-historic-monument-area.html
As mentioned there three poles whose location was moved a few metres by contractors from plan which placed them within plotted area. Retrospective permission apparently provided, no reports of archaeological damage, no report of criminal charges. If something’s a crime the guidance is officially: don’t.
Can’t comment on areas of specific interest as no idea what one of those is. Law on ASSIs, SSSIs and listed buildings is clear and needs legislation to change.
Should mention this publication was a summary of existing laws and regulations, not an announcement of anything new.
Poles are clearly superior.
No disruptive digging, not just for laying the cables, but also for any fixes in future.
Cable fed to home at height instead of digging up front garden, paving. The latter is a complaint from a lot of people.
Some people just seem extremely fussy, they must not have many problems if a street pole is a big issue for them.
But it’s not about normal amounts of poles to serve an area is it ? It’s about duplicate and triplicate poles in streets , I have a telegraph pole that’s in the corner of my garden , it’s been there since the houses were built , it has FFTP ,it doesn’t bother me. Across the road from me now is an MS3 pole fibre daisy chained to others ( something that KCOM has never done ) duplicate infrastructure , no attachments to houses !!!
Where all infrastructure was underground by KCOM in accessible ducts that could have been shared, telegraph poles installed by two different companies . So saying it’s just about A pole is not what is bothering residents
@polish poler these three poles had not been moved by the contractors as reported and there would have been others in the scheduled monument area if we had not gone to historic england for help . It was Historic England who informed us that there had been no application for scheduled monument consent from the DCMS through historic England . And it is a criminal offence to do works without scheduled monument consent if you are digging more than 1metre down . Any works needing archeological supervision . Whether there were any archeological information or artefacts in the sites where the three telegraph poles were placed will never be known as it was decided by historic England that the sites should not be disturbed further and the said telegraph poles were taken down by tree surgeons . The fact no scheduled monument consent was never originally applied for before these poles were put up proves that it was not clear to MS3
There is one other sort of pole that is put up in urban areas: A religious boundary pole. These won’t be covered in Parliamentary advice or general poling best practice documents (but would be subject to some restrictions such as scheduled monuments).
These poles are installed for the benefit for persons who are following more orthodox/observant practices of Judaism. The intention is to create an enclosed boundary in the public realm called an Eruv. The benefit is to permit activities within an area that are not otherwise permitted in public on the Sabbath; most commonly cited is an ability to use or push a wheelchair to enable persons of restricted mobility to attend services in a local synagogue. As a more unusual example, apparently the US White House is within an Eruv, to facilitate activities within on a Sabbath. There are several in North London. (map: https://www.eruv.co.uk/)
The Eruv is created by suspending thin line (usually thinner than a typical external use fibre optic line, almost invisible) between poles to visibly cross spaces that can’t practically otherwise be bridged to create a continuous line enclosing and area, usually around a synagogue. Other supports may be possible to carry the line. The line is checked regularly to ensure it is still complete.
I won’t go further details (do your own research online).
It would seem by definition that poles and lines used for an Eruv can’t support other services (i.e. carry data within the line or carry additional optical fibres for data) , nor does it seem possible that an Eruv line can use existing poles (but I am not an expert as to the precise possibilities and restrictions).