"Typical NIMBY sillyness"
The sillyness was someone suggesting that anything is justified if done for the common good.
The NIMBY jibe suggests that I would be happy if the problem is dumped on someone else: that is not the case - I don't mind having such things in my street but would prefer them to be installed with some attempt to be less intrusive and not to take half of the available pavement. I fail to understand the ranting of some that BT should be able to install what they like, as if Internet access speed is the only thing that matters in life.
"Will *you* pay the extra it costs for me to get a serviceable broadband service, because you want your street to look like something from Poundbury? Didn't think so"
Well, you thought wrong. I wouldn't mind paying extra to avoid the the road looking like an industrial estate if I felt I needed the speed. As it happens, I value my home environment more than the speed of my Internet connection. Each to their own.
"The street no more doesn't 'belongs' to the residents either."
True but residents can't build in the street despite the fact that residents pay for the council to maintain it. Other utilities have to acquire their own land to site (and disguise) their equipment - why should BT be any different?
"An aside; if you have to 'jump through hoops' to get planning you are doing it wrong, employ an architect or an engineer to do it for you."
Regardless of which people you employ, planning consent is difficult to obtain in many parts of the country unless you are well connected. It depends where you live.
I'm sure BT's planners have sleepless nights worrying about the visual impact of their installations and of the disruption caused to everyone during works.