FROM THE INDUSTRY
If the current approach isn’t working, what are the alternatives? One option would be to have the works covered by a competent person scheme. I think that’s more proportionate for the actual risk we’re talking about with fibre deployment. There are already 17 such schemes in operation. FIRAS’s competent person scheme for passive fire protection— that’s one option, if it could be added to the government’s list of registered competent person schemes relating to building safety. Another sensible and proportionate option would be empowering freeholders to manage the deployment of fibre into their buildings in a controlled manner, under guidance that’s set out and approved by the Building Safety Regulator. That would be relatively simple if the freeholder had the competency to manage it themselves, or the ability to manage a third party to oversee the process on their behalf. Are you saying that under the current rules, does each ISP needs to go through the same building safety approval process to wire the same building? Yes! Under the current guidance, each internet service provider that wants to wire the building has to go through the same protracted approval process, managed by the freeholder or building owner, one after the other.
Rufford and Moreton on the Steyne Estate - Ealing
And there’s another thing worth noting here. The PSTN switch-off—the Public Switched Telephone Network switch-off— it’s already been delayed once, and it’s fast approaching now. 31st January 2027. From a safety perspective, many of the most vulnerable people rely on PSTN for emergency alarms, telecare devices, things like that. We need fibre in these buildings to ensure continuity of those services. Government and Ofcom have been encouraging providers to make sure there’s continuity of service, especially for people who rely on telecare devices or don’t have an internet connection. But by creating obstacles to fibre with these BSR regulations, they’re actually preventing providers from achieving that continuity. It’s completely contradictory.
prevent cables collapsing, requirements that fire stopping must be done under proper competency schemes—that stuff’s already in place. Therefore, in my opinion, the need to apply for building safety approval that can take nearly a year just isn’t proportionate to the actual risk when it comes to fibre deployment. I think a more proportionate regime could—and should—be managed competently by the freeholder under specific guidance from Building Safety. What’s at stake if we don’t sort this out? What happens if we don’t find a proportionate and viable solution? We’re looking at perpetuating or even deepening digital exclusion for people who own or live in flats. Many of the worst affected, the people most in need live in MDUs. The new regulation for High-Risk Buildings is already a difficult, disproportionate hurdle to get over—and that’s before you even factor in the cost of compliance. The viability question. ISPs are in a different situation now; investors aren’t falling over themselves to invest, interest rates aren’t low anymore, there aren’t blocks to cherry pick. That’s had a huge effect on perceived viability. As a result, any proportionate requirement for building safety also has to be viable, or we’ll just go from one obstacle— overzealous regulation—to another—lack of viability and appetite.
SCCI Alphatrack winning ‘Most innovative Fibre Deployment’ at the ISPA Awards 2025
70
DECEMBER 2025 Volume 47 No.4
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker