Gov Considers Easier Access to Blocks of Flats for UK Broadband Upgrades
The new UK Government has begun informally consulting with the telecoms industry after network operators called on them to make it easier and cheaper to access large residential buildings (MDUs – blocks of flats or apartments), which could help to upgrade related buildings to gigabit-capable broadband. Easier said than done.
The previous government has already done a fair bit of work to improve the situation around access to Multi-Dwelling Units (MDU). One example of this was the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 (TILPA), which tackled situations where so-called “rogue landlords” failed to respond (here and here) and tenants had demanded faster connections.
The TILPA changes tackled this by introducing a significantly cheaper and faster route for dispute resolution via a new court process. But this only applies after a landlord has repeatedly failed to respond to requests for access (i.e. when seeking a legal wayleave agreement) and still leaves plenty of other barriers to entry.
Advertisement
For example, Openreach have complained about restrictions on their ability to upgrade existing infrastructure inside large residential buildings (MDUs), which exist because the owners of such buildings must still give their express permission for any upgrades to take place (even when the operator has existing lines in the building). “Some 990,000 tenants are missing out on our Full Fibre [FTTP] network thanks to this red tape,” said the CEO of Openreach, Clive Selley, last month (here). But it’s unclear how many of that 990k may already have gigabit access via a rival network.
The issue of automatic upgrade rights in MDUs sounds like a fair argument (i.e. extending Openreach’s existing maintenance/repair agreements to include full fibre upgrades). But rival operators have previously warned that granting special access to Openreach – without also affording opponents a fair level of comparable accessibility – risks handing the incumbent an unfair competitive advantage (here).
However, the new government, which has pledged to make a “renewed push to fulfil the ambition of full gigabit and national 5G coverage by 2030,” currently appears to be quite receptive to the idea of tackling such problems. For example, they’ve already set out their desire for reform of the planning system under their Planning and Infrastructure Bill (here and here), which might also make it easier to deploy digital infrastructure.
What’s new today
According to the FT (paywall), the government’s Building Digital UK (BDUK) agency has now engaged their Barrier Busting Task Force (BBTF) to informally contact broadband operators and seek feedback on the main challenges being faced in securing agreements for private and social housing MDUs, as well as the average costs and resources used in doing so.
Advertisement
In a letter seen by the newspaper, the BBTF states that they’re looking to understand where the barriers to deployment are “most pronounced and where they can be mitigated or removed“, before adding how they “know there are varied views on this subject and are keen to fully understand different perspectives and experiences“.
The government correspondence, which has been expressed as an “information gathering exercise” that is “not intended as a formal call for evidence or consultation“, is seeking responses to be returned by 9th September 2024.
A spokesperson for the Government (DSIT) said:
“No decision has been reached following an informal gathering exercise. [DSIT] is committed to fair competition, and as set out in our manifesto, our priority is closing the digital divide and ensuring everyone has access to fast and reliable connection, no matter where they live or work.”
However, property owners and tenants also have concerns that have to be balanced in all this (i.e. insurance, damage to property, security, safety [e.g. fire, asbestos] and other liabilities etc.), which is because upgrading copper to fibre lines in MDUs can sometimes be a bit more involved than it may seem (not minor work) and not everybody wants that (especially if the building already has such a network or networks present).
The previous government never quite managed to find a complete solution for all this and the new government will inevitably face the same issues. Suffice to say, network operators and the government will be walking a bit of a tightrope in terms of the rights of freeholders and leaseholders etc.
Advertisement
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.
« Ogi Secure £45m Investment to Boost FTTP Broadband Build in Wales
Hmm. While giving MDU residents access to faster broadband has to be a good thing, I think it’s equally important that Openreach’s works are closely monitored. As part of their installation they damaged the fire compartmentalisation for our MDU, and they’ve had to remediate a significant number of installations where they’ve penetrated the flat front door or door frame.
Hopeful some positive change can come out of this, as a leaseholder of a flat in an MDU I can vouch for how flawed and feudal the current system is.
Neighbours across the road from me (in a semi-detached) have access to Openreach FTTP, Virgin, Hyperoptic and a couple other alt nets (according to BIDB) for years now. Meanwhile I’ve been stuck on Openreach FTTN as the only available service (with a possible line fault according to a BT tech, which they have never been able to fix).
I’ve spoken to all of those providers, with almost all being very hesitant to even put me in touch with MDU/Wayleaves teams as they seem to be selective in where they put their efforts/budgets into pursuing these agreements. Apparently my freeholder is notorious for charging extortionate fees to even start discussions around wayleave agreements, so given the amount of funding providers can claim per flat and the size of my block (under 15 flats) the fees alone from the freeholder would exceed the entire budget for the build.
Not only that, but unsurprisingly freeholders are aware of the recent changes with the TILPA Act which appear to be extremely easy to skirt around. All they need to do is respond with “No” or “Pay us” and the Act is powerless.
They are already shafting people with more property taxes, no surprise if they fully remove the right to say no to drilling your property
Oh no, somebody replacing their existing copper network with fibre in a building when you’ve shown zero interest in arranging it yourself, at no cost to you. It’s a hard life.
Openreach is not the only one, like the article explicitly states: if only openreach gets granted permission then it is an unfair huge advantage
It is not a simple act, it involves drilling, disturbance, and many risks to the property. I recall an event where Hyperoptic drilled into a water pipe flooding the building
John your issues just sound like the boilerplate excuses building managers and freeholders use to exert power over their tenants for no good reason.
Anyone doing work will be insured, so yes there is a risk they drill into a water pipe but how is this any different to a tenant or leaseholder leaving a tap on or having a cracked pipe? Assuming your buildings documentation and plans are all up to date, it should be no trouble for the person doing the work to quickly turn off the mains and have a plumber out to resolve at no cost to yourself.
Noise/disturbances are already managed and regulated by the local council. If providers/contractors are causing a disturbance then this is an issue between them and the council and is not something for the freeholder to enforce. How is this any different to roadworks outside or neighbouring properties having construction work done causing just as much, if not more noise (We’re talking about drilling a few holes and running fibre – not demolishing a building or repaving a street).
If the work is to improve the quality of life for the tenants, whether they be freeholders, leaseholders or rental tenants then this should be given the priority over an inanimate building owned for the profit of others.
If you own a block of flats and aren’t interested in developing it then sell up. If you want to maintain tight control over exactly how things are installed then have containment installed when you refurbish communal areas and insist that all fibre networks must use this.
Hyperoptic drilled through a district heating loop outside my front door when installing several years ago – they closed the valves to isolate that section and the management company had an emergency plumber on site within an hour, Hyperoptic picked the bill up. Things happen, they get corrected, and being a landlord does sometimes involve putting in a bit of work to make life better for people who call these places their homes.
I live in a two storey block of eight purpose-built flats. Within the boundaries of the property is a telegraph pole serving three houses that are owned by the same landlord within the same property boundary.
Next to the fence of the property on the other side is another telegraph pole.
All houses served by these telegraph poles can now get FTTP.
For some reason the flats can’t. It’s ridiculous. They could easily run a cable from either pole to any of the flats.
I notice the no Govt support for loosening planning for 5G Masts has not been reported on ISP. The elephant in the room.
Make it lawful for any leaseholder who are blocked from receiving a fibre connection to withhold ground rent and/or service charges from their freeholder.
All we need is for Openreach to realise that some properties have multiple occupancy and require a multi port ONT to enable occupants of each unit to go to their respective providers of choice as right now it’s a nightmare trying to get FTTP working for some of our customers