My guess is that this is a cost issue. Yes, I'm sure the box could be designed to be less intrusive, but that could result in something more costly to make and - perhaps - more difficult for the engineer to use, thus adding to the ongoing costs of equipment installation and maintenance.
All of this would, of course, be reflected in the price we pay for broadband.
But if I were able to get a better broadband connection, I'd be happy to have one of these boxes in our road...
I don't think easily is the right word to describe them to be placed underground.
Whenever I've seen inside one of these boxes, they're jam packed full of kit. So if we assume that the cubic volume is what is required for their purpose, the only other option is for them to be lower and wider, but then they'll always be another Luddite somewhere or another that wouldn't like the width...
The thing that stuck out for me was the fact that her local council also objected but BT were able to over-rule them Something not quite right there. Why is a private company able to over-rule local authorities and why could BT not have informed the people in the street, especially the lady concerned who also ended up being without gas as they disconnected her gas supply without informing her.
Caring about your local amenities doesn't make you a Luddite. 'Progress at any cost'is definitely not a mantra we should be adopting, especially when we can look back and see some of the horrific environmental eyesores inflicted on us by previous generations.