KCOM Publish Prices for Broadband Infrastructure Sharing in Hull UK UPDATE
Hull-based network operator KCOM, which has already deployed their own Fibre-to-the-Premises (FTTP) broadband network across a big chunk of East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, has today quietly published their first terms and pricing details for a new PIA solution. The product allows rivals to run new fibre via the operator’s existing cable ducts and poles.
At present, the Macquarie-backed KCOM is still deemed by Ofcom to hold Significant Market Power (SMP) in the Hull area only and its full fibre (FTTP) lines have already covered virtually all local homes and businesses. The operator has since also expanded their fibre into other parts of East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) – covering a total of 305,000 premises.
In an ideal world, KCOM’s local rivals (MS3, Connexin etc.) would also love to run at least some of their own fibre cables via the incumbents existing cable ducts and poles. Not only would this reduce their civil engineering costs and speed up deployments, but it would also help to avoid some of the anti-pole protests that have impacted a few recent deployments.
Advertisement
However, while this approach works well with Openreach’s regulated Physical Infrastructure Access (PIA) product across other parts of the UK, it’s long been a different story with KCOM. The law does require KCOM to fairly share access to their existing infrastructure in Hull (ATI Regulations). But rival operators expecting the same level of access, flexibility and affordability as the regulated PIA solution from Openreach have often run into problems with KCOM’s confidential commercial terms, which up until recently were allegedly placing an unfeasibly high price on access.
The situation meant that KCOM’s rivals often ended up having to build lots of new infrastructure, such as poles, which, as above – tended to irritate local communities because quite a lot of the area had previously only ever had underground cables. But between 2023 and 2024 this became somewhat of a political issue (here, here and here), which ultimately ended up placing greater pressure on KCOM to produce a PIA-alike solution.
Sharing infrastructure
In response, KCOM eventually reached an agreement with Connexin and MS3 to co-develop a new pathway to accessing their existing ducts in order to run new fibre (i.e. limiting the need for new poles). Initial trials of this are still understood to be ongoing (here and here) and the project is still very much in its infancy.
The good news today is that KCOM appears to have released the first detailed product descriptions, T&Cs and even pricing details of their own KPIA product into the public domain (here). Interestingly, the first PIA Reference Offer (PDF) document for this is currently dated for the 1st August 2025 (pricing here), which suggests that it may still be in draft form ahead of a full launch and is thus likely still subject to change.
Advertisement
A spokesperson for MS3 told ISPreview:
“Eight years since MS3 first asked to share KCOM infrastructure using the ATI process, we are pleased that finally KCOM has launched a sharing product and for the first time published an associated price list.
Despite being the only active other party in the Joint Working Group helping to shape this framework, today is the first time we have seen this full price list and it will take us some time to understand whether the product and prices are fair and comparable to other providers, such as Openreach, where MS3 has successfully deployed tens of thousands of homes in towns such as Scunthorpe and Grimsby using existing poles and ducts.
We hope that the introduction of this Reference Offer will not slow down our current sharing trial with KCOM, where another 3,000 homes are due to have choice of network provider for the first time in the coming weeks.”
As we’ve said before, the first iteration of the KCOM-PIA product is still likely to reflect quite a manual process (akin to Openreach’s early approach from about a decade ago) and some of its costs, such as for Network Adjustments, look as if they could work out to be a fair bit more expensive. But it’s hard to judge this properly today and we’ll need to take a deeper dive into the details and fine print.
The other catch in all this is that it comes at a time when Connexin is in the process of being acquired by CityFibre (i.e. future expansion across Hull are uncertain and had already been on somewhat of a pause). At the same time, MS3, which is currently dealing with wider financial / market pressures (like many altnets), has reduced its build in order to focus on greater commercialisation of what they’ve already built (in Hull specifically they’ve already covered around 130k premises RFS).
Ofcom are also preparing a separate Telecoms Access Market Review 2026 (TAR) specifically for the Hull area, which will no doubt take a closer look at KCOM’s solution. But the first proposals under that won’t be published for quite a few months. Nevertheless, the above move by KCOM does represent progress, even if it is the sort of development that would have had more impact 2-3 years ago and is now arriving a bit late to the party.
UPDATE 4th July 2025 @ 9:28am
Advertisement
We’ve had a comment from KCOM.
A KCOM Spokesperson told ISPreview:
“Over the past year, we have been collaborating with interested parties to trial sharing access to our infrastructure. All parties have worked well together to find a solution that works for customers, residents and communications providers in a sustainable competitive market.
We believe we have now reached a solution which is fit for purpose for current demand in the Hull area and we are ready to launch the full-scale Reference Offer Product, which will shortly be available to all communication providers in the Hull area.”
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.
« Top 10 UK Full Fibre Providers by Share of New Build Homes – 2025
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message and display names can be almost anything you like (provided they do not contain offensive language or impersonate a real persons legal name). By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
Can anyone tell me , who understands the buisness , are these fair and reasonable terms of pricing ? The pricing would never be on a par with openreach as openreach are a completely different entity to KCOM with vast reach of infrastructure compared to KCOM . MS3 comments conveniently forget to mention that they did not actually apply and negotiate to share infrastructure with KCOM ( in the correct way ) until early 2024
There’s no reason they shouldn’t be on a par with Openreach. KCOM’s last mile infrastructure is exactly as far and deep reaching as Openreach’s, it’s just on a smaller geographic scale.
@125us, you neglect to consider the fixed cost to run the business. The OR scale will make this much more efficient. Look at the historic OR prices, they have come down massively over time. I’d expect KCOM to have a similar commercial challenges and this will be a reasonable justification for higher cost inputs.
There’s a regulatory role to manage this completely differently from OR in my opinion. But I don’t think this will be a regulatory priority, personally.
Will Openreach not expand there Fibre into the Hull area if they can use KCOM infrastructure?
‘MS3 comments conveniently forget to mention that they did not actually apply and negotiate to share infrastructure with KCOM ( in the correct way ) until early 2024’
Really? I’ve showed you more than once that this is wrong. I’ve showed you the evidence on why this is wrong. I’ve explained why it’s wrong, complete with quotes from the same document you tried to use as evidence.
Please either stop claiming this, prove it, or confirm that you’re going to knowingly lie about it. Fine to dislike a company but keep it to the facts, eh?
Polish poler these facts came from CEO of KCOM
When he informed that no-one had used their SoR process. Okay.
As was mentioned to you a while back when you wrote this you seem to think KCOM get to decide what the ‘correct’ format to ask to share infrastructure is. They don’t. They know they don’t which is why this:
https://www.kcom.com/wholesale/media/2yzfqoxo/kcom-request-for-new-wholesale-services-v21-030420.pdf
Bottom of page 10 of 30:
‘KCOM prefers the use of a SoR. However, where a Communications Provider submits a request under the terms of relevant regulation without using our SoR Template in Annex 2 we will simply process the request in accordance with the relevant regulation.’
The SoR process means other operators agree to KCOM’s terms and conditions for an SoR. The ATI regulations don’t. MS3 have been submitting requests under the Access to Infrastructure Regulations for years. They’re bound by confidentiality agreements with KCOM as far as pricing and other terms go so can’t broadcast what the results have been without risking legal action.
You can find the evidence for this at the link above, at the ATI regulations themselves, and historical comments and posts by MS3.
Then there’s of course that you think they built poles in your area because they wanted to build an asset. The obvious response is that outside of your area they are very close to 100% utilisation of existing infrastructure. There is exactly one variable that accounts for this difference and it isn’t anything to do with MS3.
Your ‘facts’ strike me as you believing what you want to believe because you don’t like MS3. I can give you one really simple question to ask KCOM that means they can’t claim MS3 didn’t ask to share infrastructure in a particular area, didn’t use their SoR process, whatever, and I’ll put it in a separate paragraph.
‘When did MS3, predecessors or affiliates first submit a request to share KCOM infrastructure under the Access to Infrastructure Regulations, and have they submitted subsequent requests since?’.
If you feel spicy follow it up with: ‘Have any requests by MS3, predecessors or affiliates to access KCOM infrastructure been accepted and equipment installed under the Access to Infrastructure Regulations?’.
If you’re right that they didn’t ask the answer to the first question will be perhaps 2024, if you’re right on the second the answer will be none given it’s not the correct way.
I can answer for you: as far as I can tell answer to the first one is 2018 and the second absolutely yes. It took an insanely long time but absolutely happened despite it being the ‘wrong’ way.
Please do feel free to prove me wrong and I’ll be grateful to have learned something. I assume you still have your Facebook group going, why not ask them? Someone may have KCOM’s ear.
Those exact questions. Not the carefully lawyered ones they’ve chosen to answer or the selective claims made. If the truth is what you say it is shouldn’t be a problem for them to be open about it, should it?
They’ve basically just copied current Openreach pricing. Only exception is spine duct, but suspect that is just cus they only have a single price, whereas Openreach have three variants depending on the number of bores. My guess is that the spine duct price is some sort of weighted average of the three Openreach variants.
Thankyou for answering my question about pricing
Polish poler ,I agree KCOM could have done far more ,much earlier to prevent this overbuild ,by telegraph poles in our area . As a buisness would you bend over backwards to potentially loose your customers ??
In 2022 Government legislation permitted development for telecommunications installations gave the telecommunications industry legal rights to overbuild in our home environments with only the very minimum rights to object .They supposedly did not foresee the “ unintended consequences of overbuild by telegraph poles!
In our area which is unique in many ways ,the result is triplication of telegraph poles in many ,many, streets and duplicate even where KCOM were underground in accessible ducts . Is this right ? Would you not want to see your home environment protected ? Would you not blame those who said they would go underground in your home environment in early 2022 and then backtrack using permitted development to build with telegraph poles ?. It is not just our area that is affected either ! Much of the Uk is affected by different operators .Yes I am passionate that this overbuild should be stopped by legislation , regulation and good practise . Long term it serves little purpose as a lot of buisnesses will fold and the reliable ones with sound buisness practise will survive . At the end of the day these redundant poles will still impact our streets and homes !
Permitted development for poles has been a thing since at least 2015, Joyce.
I said nothing about whether it was reasonable or not and entirely agree with you on how it looks. No-one wants poles in their street and almost everyone would prefer utilities underground.
I took exception to how you keep popping up on here writing things that at best aren’t accurate. It actively undermines your case.
You are wrong that KCOM’s ducts were accessible, they were only that way in theory. For practical purposes it wasn’t possible. I am aware of a couple of cases where access to a small section of duct took ballpark 2 years to gain access to. You’re talking about sound business practices, spending 2+ years on each duct and pole access request isn’t a sound business practice. You wrote: ‘As a buisness would you bend over backwards to potentially loose your customers ??’ – exactly. KCOM had every incentive to make access to their infrastructure as difficult and expensive as possible. I thought this would be obvious, they were behaving as any privately owned business would which is why I was confused that they kept getting a free pass. They wanted to charge as much as possible for as little as possible for as long as possible. This is rational.
On plans changing from underground build to poles this is also rational and down to sound business practices. Does that mean you should like it? No, of course not.
Outside of your area pole overbuild is minimal. There’s one company that is doing it by the bucketload and they should absolutely be stopped from doing so. Besides that everyone else is using existing infrastructure where it’s there and only standing new poles where necessary. They’re almost entirely in areas that are partially or entirely directly buried cabling.
The redundant poles in the case of business failure should not still impact streets and homes by the way. Companies must set aside funds to recover infrastructure if they fold.
@POLISH POLER
Guy Miller claimed that MS3 Networks never anticipated the strength of feelings amongst the East Riding and Hull communities against their pole installations.
Why? It had already been well-documented on ISPreview and several other media outlets that communities don’t like, don’t want and don’t need such duplication of overground infrastructure.
The previous Industry Code of Practice and the new Code of Practice all talk about how Code Operators should consult with local communities but MS3 have totally swerved any kind of consultation. By the way, Guy Miller works on the committee that worded the new Code of Practice.
Hypocrite is one term that springs to mind. I have several others but daren’t share them here!
I’m not going to try and dispute what you said as I am not familiar enough with that side of the situation besides that nowhere had there been the reaction there was in the Hull area.
There had of course been isolated incidents but that was, by a mile, the strongest responses, likely because that area is where the largest number of new poles were being built so not a surprise the reaction was stronger. MS3 probably weren’t expecting people to cut poles down or police to have to attend where they were trying to work.
Not taking any particular side either way. I can’t dispute either the claims consultation was insufficient or that part of the reason for this was MS3 staff feeling threatened. I only have access to what’s online and only take a proportion of that at remotely face value.
Polish poler “outside of our area overbuild is minimal” just tell that to people in the north west ,Bolton , Oldham , southport areas . Garforth near Leeds , Broadway in the Cotswolds . Braintree in Essex . Stourport , the midlands . Bournville . There are many many more. Yes maybe not as severely by telegraph poles, not triplicate as far as I’m aware . But Telegraph poles where all infrastructure was underground FFTP and now areas of AONB with unnecessary telegraph poles that were already served by FFTP . Our councils have no say in the matter except in exceptional circumstances. Residents have no say except in exceptional circumstances. It seems the telecommunications industry have no care for the visual impact or restricting accessibility of footpaths. You agree you wouldn’t like telegraph poles in your street , that utilities belong underground . No one disputes the importance of the need for connectivity for all ,the availability of FFTP infrastructure,gigabit capable broadband and choice of ISPs . It’s just that it shouldn’t come at the detriment of our home environments and communities with telegraph poles cluttering our streets.
Where outside of Hull has anywhere with FTTP and underground ducts usable by third parties seen poles being built other than by IX Wireless, please?
Bournville has no usable third party duct, the Openreach network there is directly buried cable. If it were usable it would’ve been used. Existing network copper or hybrid copper.
The bits of Garforth that have seen poles is directly buried cable. Areas with available Openreach plant have been built by Netomnia and Openreach. That said Openreach have been upgrading it and I’m not a fan of the pole count.
Stourport direct in ground Openreach plant, existing network copper or hybrid copper.
Broadway: 22 poles, no usable preexisting infrastructure, judicially reviewed and accepted.
Braintree: No idea. The man behind the Hedon blog sent an FOI request to their district council alongside dozens of others seeking to: ‘… gather evidence as to the distress and disruption caused in local communities as a result of the permitted development legislation, the operating practices of network builders (code operators) and the proliferation of telegraph poles…’ but besides that I’ve no idea. Braintree is an overbuild basket case but as far as new duct and poles go no idea.
Bits of the north I refer back to my earlier comment: ‘There’s one company that is doing it by the bucketload and they should absolutely be stopped from doing so.’ A single bad actor shouldn’t reflect on the entire industry.
Footpath accessibility is a matter of law and must be a concern for operators.
Indeed I would prefer operators use existing underground infrastructure, in my case three of them have. I have four full fibre providers available with zero excavation either for duct or poles.
This overly long post aside I stand by that the pole build has been minimal in Openreach areas. It costs four figures to put up a pole then fibre it, it costs a lot less to pull fibre into existing ducts or install it on existing poles. Three alternative networks here all using existing infrastructure. In the wider city there are new poles but talking one or two percent of the pole build in East Yorkshire.
East Yorkshire is uniquely cursed in the UK sadly. Sorry you’re one of those impacted.