Fiber-to-the-home networks generated less carbon than cable and fixed wireless alternatives across their full lifecycle, according to a recent white paper by the Fiber Broadband Association (FBA).
The analysis, produced by the association’s Sustainability Working Group, applied the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Life Cycle Assessment method to measure carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions at three stages: manufacturing network components, installing and building the network, and the electricity consumed once the network is operating.
It compared fiber using XGS-PON technology against hybrid fiber coax (HFC) running DOCSIS 4.0 in suburban areas, and against fixed wireless access (FWA) in rural areas. The paper carried forward a July 2024 study that examined only fiber and cable.
In the suburban comparison, the FBA said manufacturing components for a fiber network produced about 60% less embodied carbon than a comparable cable network, while installation carbon was 7% lower. The group reported that the operator’s access network used up to 96% less electricity with fiber, and that home equipment consumed up to 17% less than a cable modem.
For rural deployments, the association found that fiber’s installation footprint was 31% lower than FWA, access network electricity use was up to 98% lower, and home equipment used up to 70% less power.
The paper also said fiber offered greater data capacity, citing up to 8.5 Gbps of usable symmetrical throughput per serving area compared with roughly 450 Mbps downstream and 108 Mbps upstream for the FWA equipment studied.
The FBA noted limits to its work. It did not calculate the embodied carbon of manufacturing FWA equipment, citing a lack of available data, and it modeled cable manufacturing on an older DOCSIS 3.1 design because specifications for DOCSIS 4.0 gear were not available when the analysis was done.
The association also said carbon was one consideration among several, including performance, reliability, and cost. It acknowledged that FWA might remain the only economically viable option in some remote areas despite its higher energy use, making carbon a secondary factor in those markets.
The working group said the findings would continue to evolve as manufacturers reduce materials and power use and adopt recycled inputs and renewable electricity.