In the bustling corridors of large city law firms, a concerning trend is emerging that could have significant repercussions for the telecommunications landscape in the UK. While the Electronic Communications Code (the “Code”) was designed to facilitate the roll-out of essential digital infrastructure, many of these firms appear to be sidestepping its core principles. This is not merely a procedural oversight; it raises serious concerns about the future of connectivity and compliance in a rapidly evolving digital world.
The Code was instituted to provide statutory protections for telecom operators, ensuring that tenants can access the infrastructure they need without undue hindrance from landlords. A key aspect of the Code is its binding nature on successors in title. This means that when a tenant vacates, the incoming operator should not have to renegotiate terms or face termination of their agreements. Yet, we are witnessing a pattern where larger firms insist on termination, compelling new operators to enter into fresh agreements with new tenants. This practice not only contradicts the spirit of the Code but also undermines the statutory protections that were put in place to ensure growth and innovation in the telecom sector.
In some of the worst cases, we are seeing contractual provisions that require operators to remove their infrastructure one month after a tenant vacates. If they fail to comply, landlords reserve the right to remove it themselves, without any recourse to the operator. This is nothing short of alarming. Operators typically invest thousands of pounds into a single installation, covering high legal fees, surveyor fees, property management fees, and funding the apparatus and its installation themselves – often at no cost to the customer. It takes, on average, five years for an operator to recoup its costs from each customer. Expecting them to dismantle their apparatus within such a short timeframe, or even removing it without recourse, makes the roll-out commercially unviable and undermines the statutory rights of Code operators. Further, these provisions potentially put landlord’s into a position of being guilty of criminal damage if it removes the apparatus whilst the operator’s statutory Code rights continue.
Would anyone expect to rent a home only to wait six months and spend upwards of £3,000 just to get connected to the internet? And yet, that’s the reality many tenants face today – with no guarantee the investment won’t be lost when they move. Landlords, too, cannot wash their hands of responsibility: allowing properties to be let without reliable fibre is no different from handing over the keys to a house with no running water or electricity. Fibre connectivity is now as essential to modern life as mains power or clean water, yet uniquely, it is fibre that tenants are forced to fight and pay for again and again. This isn’t just inconvenient; it is fundamentally unjust. The system unfairly burdens tenants and throttles progress in the telecommunications sector by putting an unnecessary and costly barrier between people and an essential service.
The motivations behind these actions seem clear. Large firms are increasingly providing a “turn-key” service for their landlord clients, handling everything from leases to licenses for alterations and wayleave agreements – all at the tenant’s expense. This approach is framed as a commercial necessity, but it is fundamentally at odds with the objectives of the Code and the government’s ambitious gigabit target. By prioritising its own interests over the needs of tenants and the statutory rights of Code operators, these firms are contributing to a landscape where connectivity becomes a bargaining chip rather than a right.
The implications of this shift are profound. As the UK strives to enhance its digital infrastructure, we must ask ourselves: who benefits from these large-scale agreements? It seems that the focus has shifted away from ensuring an environment conducive to growth for telecom operators, particularly smaller and more innovative firms that are essential for a competitive market. Instead, we risk entrenching the power of a few large firms while stifling the very connectivity that the Code was designed to promote.
In light of these developments, it is imperative for all stakeholders to re-evaluate their approach to the Electronic Communications Code. Law firms, particularly those operating in the larger city markets, must recognise their role in shaping the future of telecommunications in the UK. A shift back towards compliance with the Code’s principles is not just a legal obligation; it is a moral one, ensuring that we do not sacrifice progress at the altar of commercial gain.
The time has come for a collective stand against these practices. It is not merely a question of legal compliance; it is about the future of connectivity, innovation, and the digital economy. The Electronic Communications Code was established for a reason, and it is high time we hold ourselves accountable to uphold its intent. Only then can we ensure a robust, fair, and accessible telecommunications landscape for all.
