UK plans right for flat owners to demand gigabit broadband

The UK government is consulting on plans to give the owners of 1.2 million flats in England and Wales a formal right to request gigabit-capable broadband. Flat owners would gain the right through proposed changes to the Electronic Communications Code that would make it easier for service providers to install network …

[Tubz]

Daft for a building owner to object, having 1G+ speeds in a flat is a advertising bonus, especially if it costs them nothing?

[Doctor Syntax]

Sometimes buildings are managed through agents. For the agent there is a cost: doing something. They'd rather collect their cut for doing nothing.

Our first flat was an attic flat with a dormer window that let in showers of water onto our dining table when it rained. It took a lot of haranguing to get it fixed although the leak must have been causing deterioration to the structure of the building. They were also uninterested in a crack opening up where the back staircase seemed to be falling away from the main building.

[Empire of the Pussycat]

Depends, one approach to wiring blocks is install rooftop distribution box(es) then run trays and external cabling over the outside of the building with at least one tail left outside each flat.

Then when the flat gets connected, drill through the external wall, or window frame if possible, to run the cable into the flat.

It doesn't cost the building owner anything, but it leaves the building entwined in cable, that traps crud, looks nasty, may start popping loose and flapping around if poorly done, and makes maintenance more fiddly (i.e. expensive) as there's cable all over the place.

My block is now on the fourth generation of being externally cabled this way, first the GPO for telephones, then 1980s cable TV, 1990s coax interweb/TV, now fibre. Whenever the old cable dies, it gets left in place, old operator(s) won't take it away, the new operator won't clear it, and the owner would want leaseholders to cough up for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having seen the standard of cabling run locally by one of the non-Openreach fibre networks I can have sympathy for landlords. This company has left cables hanging loose, some from poles they've erected, some as loops on the outside of street facing properties (in a few cases, on the verge of being classed as a public hazard). In some areas of the country local yobs would have had great fun.

[Tom Graham]

It took CityFibre five attempts to run cable the 5 metres from the street into the front of my house without it getting broken, but eventually they did and I have had reliable super fast broadband ever since.

[Cliffwilliams44]

I see this a lot of times in places with existing conduit. The conduit is so full of other cables you cannot pull the fiber through without stretching it. If it stretches too much it develops micro cracks in the fiber.

I've seen this in office buildings where the main conduit that runs up the elevator (lift) shaft is so full you can barely run any new cable. 50% of the cables in the conduit are no longer in use because each tome a tenant wants new or replacement service the provider runs new cable because they cannot use or remove the old one.

[elsergiovolador]

If buildings are used as a store of value by wealthy foreigners and corporations then broadband is just another headache.

[Doctor Syntax]

I suppose there's more money to be made from installing fibre in flats than providing an effective service to rural properties.

[codejunky]

@Doctor Syntax

"I suppose there's more money to be made from installing fibre in flats than providing an effective service to rural properties."

I would expect so. A block of flats is likely in a place with a concentration of people therefore nearer to existing infrastructure. The flats likely containing a number of residents more likely to take up the offer of faster internet.

Compare that to ass end of nowhere which is out of the way of existing infrastructure and few residents who may or not care about faster network speeds and it does make some sense. One of the appeals of ass end of nowhere is to get away from the usual infrastructure that makes up population centres.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Compare that to ass end of nowhere which is out of the way of existing infrastructure"

Why the Americanism? And why the assumption that rural properties are particularly remote or isolated?

There is the little matter of universal provision to remember. I see that, like Openreach, you don't remember.

There are not locations "out of the way of the existing infrastructure". They are on it. Some of that infrastructure was installed in the days of aluminium conductors which doesn't help. They have been left with either long ADSL connections or else equally bad, long connections to FTTC access. Meanwhile those with short FTTC runs are being offered FTTP while those with a mile or so long zig-zagged overhead cables to the same cabinet, get nothing.

It's definitely a case of those that have shall be given more and those that have not shall have the little they have taken away from them as a VOIP replacement for analogue is likely to be problematic.

BT inherited an obligation from its nationalised existence. It is not meeting it.

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@Doctor Syntax

"Why the Americanism?"

Why the problem? I nearly said the sticks as is usually used around here.

"And why the assumption that rural properties are particularly remote or isolated?"

Rural. Its different from Urban. One having a sparser population than the other. As a result there is often an infrastructure difference. You feeling ok today?

"There is the little matter of universal provision to remember. I see that, like Openreach, you don't remember."

Do you mean the Universal Service Obligation? The gov can legislate that water is dry, and we could then remember and laugh. Anyway isnt internet by satellite becoming a thing?

"Meanwhile those with short FTTC runs are being offered FTTP while those with a mile or so long zig-zagged overhead cables to the same cabinet, get nothing."

You seem to have written an entire paragraph noticing a problem. Just because they have the old tech doesnt mean they can easily or cost effectively have the new tech.

"It's definitely a case of those that have shall be given more and those that have not shall have the little they have taken away from them as a VOIP replacement for analogue is likely to be problematic."

Places easy to service and worth the cost will get more yes. Business goes where the client is.

"BT inherited an obligation from its nationalised existence. It is not meeting it."

The gov wasnt meeting it so privatised BT. It provides a service that covers almost all better than the nationalised service.

[Adrian The Alchemist]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

It also depends on cost va demand

Openreach did the whole area to FTTC then FTTP at the start of the rollout which includes all the villages and hamlets

I got my order in with EE quick (they actively publish settings for your own kit) and it still took 4 months to get hooked up due to local demand

Cityfibre had been doing bits here and there and stopped 5 mins up the road by the church, and nobody has seen them since 2024, apparently plans have been scaled back due to low national makeup of 10%

But up here it's pretty much all rural and we not only got done early but as I have got some 10gig ethernet stuff including router I'm on a trial of 1.8 gigabit, so faster speeds are coming just got to wait for better network adaptors

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"Rural. Its different from Urban. One having a sparser population than the other. As a result there is often an infrastructure difference. You feeling ok today?"

I'm feeling fine living as I do in a rural location. We have neighbours on both sides of the road back down to the pub, church and cricket field and there are houses strung along the road with very few gaps all the way back to the exchange. Off the lane there's an estate with 48 houses and a smaller one with a few retirement flats. A couple of hundred metres up the road is are three more houses and another cluster a hundred or so metres further up. That may be sparse by urban standards, it's not isolated. You need to get out more.

Fair enough we do have good connections on this side of the valley. It's not clear why the other side isn't as well served - except for the fibre that was laid for the mobile mast.

[codejunky]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

@Doctor Syntax

"I'm feeling fine living as I do in a rural location."

It wasnt a dig, your comment didnt sound like you thats all.

"That may be sparse by urban standards, it's not isolated. You need to get out more."

You are the one who made the comment not me. I gave an example and you took it to heart. I expanded further in my reply to you about the cost effectiveness of population sizes.

[Jedit]

"BT inherited an obligation from its nationalised existence. It is not meeting it."

Just say it's a private company. Fewer words, same meaning. Obligations to the customers always play second fiddle to obligations to the shareholders.

[Tom 38]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

1/

The original USO was for telephony. It was updated in 2020 to cover broadband. We are entitled to a "decent" connection - 10Mbps/1Mbps - and BT have to provide such a connection for £max(cost - 3400, 0).

Apart from that, everything else is a commercial decision of where to invest their money.

The USO has to be bearable by BT. I mean, fuck BT, but it also has to be bearable by them or they wouldn't accept. It becomes bearable by the Gov stuffing their pockets with cash - BT would definitely accept a 1Gbit USO if you stuffed their pockets with enough cash. So the Gov play is to have a weakened USO until there is more Gigabit, and then increase the USO when they don't have to stuff so much cash into BT's hands.

2/

City dwellers pay for rural infrastructure, so maybe wind back the woe is me rhetoric. This is not 2005, you can get mostly reliable cheap 10-20Mbps internet in fairly remote places in the UK, and if that isn't sufficient you can get Starlink and pay for the service you need, and if that is too expensive you can just sit and swivel for 7 years until there is Gbit (99%) everywhere. Its lovely living in the countryside, but that's the choice: you don't get the infrastructure improvements as fast as the rest of the UK.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Meeting regulatory requirements is a cost of doing business, not some sort of cross-subsidy. There were - probably stall are - rules about BT not subsidising one sort of business from another. It was attempts to get into non-regulated areas that started BT manglement on their loss-making international ventures in the 90s.

[Like a badger]

Only if the owner/manager permits access, and there's no technical challenges to running the fibre. There's a surprising number of absentee landlords (often overseas) for some HMO type properties, some are simply lazy, inconsiderate types, or even bungling and obstructive housing associations or service companies. Even with permission there's often technical challenges some of which will be obvious if you think about it - eg no suitable ducting within the premises, ducting that's blocked or inaccessible, no safe access for routing cables up walls, electrical, fire, or building code problems uncovered when work starts etc etc.

The flats that haven't been served will often have at least one, sometimes many of these problems, so even with a legal obligation to allow installation, it doesn't follow that it will be economic for the networks, especially if take up rates are low or customer quality is poor.

[Bebu sa Ware]

"customer quality is poor."

The first time (and very probably the last) I have seen that phrase with the word service omitted especially when discussing telcos.

Presumably means "below zero" (bozo) [profitability] customers.

[Oh Matron!]

True, although, having fallen tired of London (Yes, I hear Samuel Johnson's quote in my head), I've been looking in the Yorkshire dales for properties, and there is the very excellent https://b4rn.org.uk/ that provides rural broadband through access to farmer's fields, etc. Easy to dig up one of those than a road. So, almost every property I've seen has had 1Gbps fibre broadband, even some 500m from the nearest road :-)

[Doctor Syntax]

That's an interesting looking operation. What a shame the community has to get together to do what the national provider has failed to do and that they have succeeded for much more remote locations than those where the national provider has failed.

[Tom Graham]

Well yes, of course. In the same way that rural properties tend to have oil heating and septic tanks - because it is not economical to install gas and sewage mains.

Luckily there is an easy alternative.

The last time I was staying in a rural property - an AirBnB this summer - it had Starlink.

[Bebu sa Ware]

Real Estate tenure in the UK…

might be a bit confusing to a non Brit.

I only have a vague idea about the difference between Renters, Lease Holders and Freehold Owners in the UK or do I mean England and Wales? (Scottish Law is bound to be different. ;)

In AU it is pretty much Torrens title (~Freehold) xor Strata Title (and older Company title); Residential (and Commercial) Tenancy.

Every few months I receive an offer for a free upgrade to fiber for the existing NBN connection that isn't actually connected (which is a bit Matt 25:29.) The suburb must have been cabled for fiber when developed in the early noughties (also has underground power which is surprisingly rare in these storm prone areas.)

Two mobile 4G/LTE connections are still cheaper than a single bottom tier NBN connection.

[eldakka]

Re: Real Estate tenure in the UK…

No, there are plenty of leases in Australia.

There is no freehold in the ACT. In the ACT leasehold is the only possibility. The ACT government owns all the non-national-park land and only makes it available under a 99-year Crown lease.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Real Estate tenure in the UK…

"which is a bit Matt 25:29"

Quite. Exactly the same in the UK which is why I'd quoted it above.

[Adrian The Alchemist]

Re: Real Estate tenure in the UK…

In the UK where it comes to flats

1 - you rent

2 - you own the flat (freehold) BUT

3 - just because you own the flat, walls, floors etc you DONT own the land that the flats sit on, the ground floor flat may do (as in my brothers flat) OR a landlord does and whoever owns that piece that land can charge "ground" rent, irrespective of you own that flat

I wouldn’t buy a flat even if I had the ground rent as I have heard too many horror stories about flats

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Real Estate tenure in the UK…

Sounds like Lyons in Darwin Northern Suburbs. Built with Telstra fibre when the estate went in.

And the power was put underground in the Northern Suburbs (at great expense) as that is where all politicians live. who didn't want to lose power when the next cyclone hit.

[IGotOut]

I demand gigabit connection in my flat!

Can I now sue the landlord?

Yes, yes I know it's impossible to actually get it round here, but they've promised I can demand it off my landlord!

[katrinab]

Re: I demand gigabit connection in my flat!

You can demand that they don't refuse OpenReach / City Fibre / Virgin / whoever permission to install it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong target

How about the government get rid of leasehold residential tenure instead! The right to fast broadband (along with other more important matters) follows once commonhold exists.

[graeme leggett]

Re: Wrong target

The government is working on commonhold. (It was in the manifesto.)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/beginning-of-the-end-for-the-feudal-leasehold-system

[Ossi]

Re: Wrong target

...but only for newly built properties. Which, given a home can last 100 years easily, makes this a pretty useless law for most if you don't have a time machine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Wrong target

Not working fast enough IMO. I remember one of the very few pieces of financial advice I was given at school in the 1970s was never, NEVER, to buy leasehold property. I have stuck to this, and find it 'interesting' that so many newly built properties are offered as leasehold; so although one is described as buying the property, it would perhaps be more accurate to describe it as a subscription, or a licence to occupy (and pay for all the repairs and other liabilities) for a limited time. We all know how wonderful subscription services have turned out to be for lowly subscribers (although fabulous money-making schemes for those collecting the fees) and what a nightmare service charges (subscription fees by any other name) have turned out to be for some lease holders.

Additionally I wouldn't trust the current UKGov shower to hold to anything in their manifesto given how much of it they have walked back from in the last few months, especially as a number of them are landlords themselves, and I wouldn't trust any one of them from any party to vote according to their own interests rather than those of constituents.

[BasicReality]

Re: Wrong target

"right to fast broadband"

What a misguided and entitled society we have become.

[Lazlo Woodbine]

When I moved into a rental property two years ago, a 4-bed house, not a flat, the tenancy agreement stated we were not allowed to drill through external walls.

This was a huge problem, as the house only had a copper phone line, and the local exchange would not reactivate that connection and they had no available copper circuits (or that's the excuse they made).

I asked the landlord and they didn'y even think twice, just told me to get OpenReach to drill into the back wall.

I fail to understand why anyone would object, especially in areas like mine that are not installing new copper.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because OpenRetch (or the contractors they use) can make a right mess.

We have a leasehold flat in a small block - OpenRetch have already put fibre into several flats, ignoring the internal spaces, and apparently going out of their way to make the cables draped over the front of the building and much of an eyesore as possible. And all done without a wayleave, so now I've just taken over as a director of the management company I intend to tackle.

[Jonathon Green]

If in doubt it’s always about the money…

…I’ll take a wild guess that in the majority of cases where an owner, or manager objects to broadband installation it’s because they’re hoping to find a way they can take a cut of both the installation and service costs for themselves by acting as an intermediary.

[Like a badger]

Re: If in doubt it’s always about the money…

Based on experience in a different but similar field, I think that's quite rare that these flat and small to medium HMO owners want to make a buck out of it, it's far more often simple incompetence, inability to contact the legal owner, or concerns of a very practical nature specific to the property.

It tends to be new build by medium to large developers or dodgy social landlords where some bastard wants to try and make a buck through some unscrupulous exclusive access deal - and that even includes freehold sales.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If in doubt it’s always about the money…

"...dodgy social landlords"

Tautology, surely.

[abend0c4]

Re: If in doubt it’s always about the money…

It's rarely about money.

Flats in England are almost all leasehold - there is an owner of the building as a whole and the "ownership" of the individual flats is actually a permission to occupy for a fixed period (usually between 99 and 999 years). The building itself may also be owned on a leasehold basis with another entity owning the ground on which it stands. The building owner and the ground owner may exact annual charges. And then the flat may be rented out by its "owner" to a tenant on a more temporary basis still.

As it's only the interior space of the flat that forms part of the occupier's contract, there are usually strict injunctions against altering the structure of the building in any way as it can affect its structural integrity and the rights of neighbours. There are good reasons for this - I've been in situations where neighbours were sawing through roof timbers to annex attic space or knocking down supporting walls and it's difficult to draft leases in a way that permits benign alterations while banning those that are potentially dangerous.

This means that the "owner" of the flat who has rented it out is not able to give permission for routing cables, particularly if they have to run over other parts of the building - that permission can only come from the building owner. The building may be owned jointly by the individual flat owners or it may be owned by a commercial property company. In the former case, it might require the agreement of other residents. If it requires any significant expenditure in the building (for example to provide cable ducts), there are legal processes to ensure that the leaseholders, who will bear the cost, are prepared to pay for it.

I think this is going to be a tricky thing to accomplish legally as it will inevitably mean the imposition of wayleaves on private property and that might have unintended consequences.

[ITMA]

Not just flat "owners"

The landlord of the flat I rent - in a purpose built block with 30+ flats - has been asked about this before.

I even received an letter from BT Openreach asking who was the landlord etc so they could enquire about access. So I put the two in contact back in October 2024. Since then I've heard nothing from either and neither are responding to emails on the subject.

Oddly, the building itself is in two halfs - purely socal housing on one side and purely private on other (under a seperate management company). According to the initial follow up emails I had from the BT Openreach guy, the private side already has full fibre.

However, it gets more complex than that as the "responsibilities" for the two halves are not clear cut.

Personally I'd rather have a fibre provider that can give better than BT's very asymetric speeds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not just flat "owners"

In our case, I actively tried to get in touch with OpenRetch to organise fibre into our block in an acceptable manner - what a complete f'in waste of time as they've just refused to engage.

[BasicReality]

The problem I see is the erosion of property owner rights. What we're talking about is to bypass the owner of the property. If they don't want someone coming in and doing the installation in their building, then no one else has a right to override that. To the renters, sorry, get something wireless or move. That's just how it is. You don't own the property, you don't have a right to modify it this way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. There are good reasons to want to control what people do to your property - as others have mentioned, not creating fire hazards and the like would be one. Not having a bunch of clueless f'wits come and wreck stuff that you then have to repair and redecorate would be another good reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one ought to be allowed to offer property for rent unless it provides access to all necessary utilities, and these days that includes internet access. Being a landlord comes with responsibilities, and if someone doesn't want those responsibilities, and doesn't want to pay an agency to take care of them, they shouldn't be a landlord.

[I could be a dog really]

Generally I agree. The problem this is aimed at is where the head landlord (the freeholder) is so far removed from the business end of things that they really don't care - and it's not them renting any thing out - they've simply sold a 99 or 999 year lease to someone back when pre-installing a copper phone line was considered "top end" practice. As a landlord at the sharp end, i.e. actually renting to a renter, it's in their interests to permit it - but they need permission from the freeholder to do it.

Not to mention, the key group being addressed is actually leaseholders - not renters. These are people who have bought a 99 or 999 year lease (or what's remaining of it), again back before high speed internet was dreamed of.

[Vestas]

The elephant in the room is...

...Grenfell.

After that everyone has become very careful - arguably they should have been before, but that's what happens with corruption.

The idea of "cables down the sides and drilling holes" isn't going to happen.

Not now (even on suitable buildings) because of liability.

If there's existing access through the building structure then no problem - eg that's the way the current copper/aluminium line comes in. If not then there's a lot of hoops to jump through from asbestos to fire break walls and its not cheap for most buildings.

This one is better left to the market IMHO for renters. Crap broadband does affect rentable value.

I believe even in England (last holdout of feudal rights) there's a right to change the managing agent if enough leaseholders vote for that so maybe change your managing agent to one who does what you want. You'll probably have to pay for it (FTTP building upgrade) but it may be quicker than waiting for the legislation and THEN guidance to go through before anything starts to happen.

[PeterGriffin]

Re: The elephant in the room is...

You are absolutely correct.

I approached my social landlord, Notting Hill Genesis, circa four years ago and with their permission contacted the Openreach MDU Team and put them in contact with each other. A Site Survey was arranged and.... cancelled. The HA took advise after Grenfell recommendations that meant all projects needed to be assessed for Asbestos and Fire Safety via frameworks / teams/ contractors they didn't yet have. I've been pressuring the manager for my MDU again this year. To his credit he has started doing something. I'm advised they may have arranged Wayleaves by year end - no idea about a site survey, proposed installation dates etc... but I never get an update unless I chase for one. It's so endlessly frustrating.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The elephant in the room is...

You lucky b'stard - how did you manage to get the MDU team to engage ?