Fiber Broadband Networks, a Lower Carbon Alternative to Cable and Fixed Wireless Networks

Sustainability is becoming a defining metric for how communications service providers evaluate their networks, and electricity consumption sits at the center of that conversation. The FBA Sustainability Working Group’s new white paper, Fiber Broadband Networks, a Lower Carbon Alternative to Cable and Fixed Wireless Networks, builds on its 2024 analysis to quantify exactly how much lower that footprint is when fiber is the technology of choice.

Using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Life Cycle Assessment methodology, the working group measured carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions across three stages of the network lifecycle: manufacturing network components, deploying and installing the network, and the electricity consumed once the network is operating. This release expands the scope of the association’s original FTTH versus HFC/DOCSIS comparison to include a new analysis of FTTH versus fixed wireless access (FWA) for rural deployments.

The results reinforce a consistent pattern. Fiber to the home using XGS-PON technology requires fewer materials to manufacture, generates less carbon during installation, and consumes dramatically less electricity to operate than either HFC/DOCSIS 4.0 or FWA. For network operators evaluating long-term infrastructure investments, and for communities weighing which broadband technology will serve them for decades to come, the data offers a clear, evidence-based case for why fiber leads on sustainability as well as performance.

Download the full white paper below for the complete methodology, data tables, and findings.

Whitepaper FAQ’s

What does this white paper measure? The paper measures the carbon footprint, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e), of three broadband technologies across their full lifecycle: manufacturing network components, network installation and buildout, and ongoing electricity use. It compares fiber to the home (FTTH) using XGS-PON technology against hybrid fiber coax (HFC) using DOCSIS 4.0 for suburban deployments, and against fixed wireless access (FWA) for rural deployments.

How much lower is fiber’s carbon footprint compared to cable? For a suburban deployment, manufacturing an FTTH network produces about 60% less embodied carbon than an equivalent HFC network. Installation carbon is 7% lower for fiber, and the operator’s access network electricity use and associated CO₂e is up to 96% lower for fiber. At the customer’s home, fiber equipment reduces electricity-related emissions by up to 17% compared to a cable modem.

How does fiber compare to fixed wireless access in rural areas? In rural deployments, fiber’s installation carbon footprint is 31% lower than FWA. The operator’s access network electricity use and CO₂e is up to 98% lower for fiber, and the equipment at the subscriber’s home consumes up to 70% less electricity with fiber than with FWA.

Why does fiber require less electricity to operate? Fiber networks using XGS-PON typically need little to no powered equipment in the outside plant between the provider’s facility and the home. HFC and FWA networks rely on additional powered devices, such as amplifiers, remote PHY nodes, or wireless base stations, that consume electricity around the clock. The study found that outside plant equipment accounts for more than 98% of the power used in HFC access networks.

What methodology did the working group use? The analysis follows the Life Cycle Assessment approach defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, applying industry standard emission factors to the mass of materials used in each network type and to the electricity consumed during operation. Findings are normalized on a per-home-passed, per-home-connected, and per-subscriber basis to allow direct comparison across technologies.

Does fiber also offer a data capacity advantage? Yes. XGS-PON delivers up to 8.5 Gbps of usable symmetrical capacity per serving area, compared to roughly 450 Mbps downstream and 108 Mbps upstream for the FWA technology examined in the study. That headroom allows fiber networks to support significantly higher subscriber take rates and future bandwidth growth without adding infrastructure.

Is this the first carbon footprint study FBA has published? No. This paper builds on the Sustainability Working Group’s July 2024 study comparing FTTH to HFC/DOCSIS. This release carries that analysis forward and adds a new comparison between FTTH and fixed wireless access for rural use cases.

Does this mean fiber is always the right choice? Carbon footprint is one factor among several that service providers should weigh, alongside performance, reliability, and cost. The paper notes that in some remote or underserved rural areas, FWA may remain the only economically viable option, even though it carries a higher carbon and electricity cost.