Policy paper

Review of the Access to Infrastructure Regulations call for evidence - government response

Updated 24 November 2021

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

Ministerial foreword

The government is committed to making the UK a global leader in digital connectivity. Levelling up means not just building new roads and railways, but also ensuring that reliable, long-lasting gigabit-capable connections are made widely available across the UK.

Having robust telecom networks in place is more important now than ever. Digital connectivity has been a lifeline, permitting millions to work at home, providing information and entertainment to those in isolation and allowing children to continue their education while their schools were closed.

I am proud of the work done so far by the telecoms industry, supported by the government and Ofcom, which has already delivered gigabit-capable broadband to over 18 million premises in the UK (60%), up from 10% in November 2019.^{[footnote 1]} However, there is a lot more to be done - we are targeting at least 85% gigabit-capable coverage by 2025 with the aim of reaching nationwide coverage as soon as possible thereafter.

The sharing of infrastructure in the rollout of world class digital infrastructure is important. It can greatly reduce the cost of deploying networks, increase the pace of rollout and can reduce the need to dig up streets, preventing unnecessary disruption to the local population and reducing carbon emissions. We are keen to support infrastructure sharing where possible, while ensuring an environment that supports investment in new network infrastructure.

Our review of the Access to Infrastructure Regulations 2016 has formed part of our work assessing whether we have the right regulatory and legislative frameworks in place to best encourage investment in new gigabit-capable networks. Last summer we ran a call for evidence asking for views on the Access to Infrastructure Regulations, and whether any improvements could be made. This document sets out our conclusions and response to the call for evidence. Generally, we found that the Regulations are broadly appropriate, and that at present there is limited industry demand for large scale reform. However we did identify some areas where some smaller amendments around timescales and enforcement powers, and some clarifications to the scope of the Regulations may improve their use.

Responses also highlighted excellent examples of current infrastructure sharing within the telecoms industry and across different types of infrastructure. The government strongly supports these initiatives, and we encourage further collaboration and innovation in these areas in order to meet our ambitions to deliver nationwide gigabit coverage and build back better across the UK.

Julia Lopez MP

Minister of State

Executive summary

1. Reusing existing infrastructure can significantly reduce the time and cost of rolling out new broadband networks, and can be a huge asset in reaching the government’s goals of delivering at least 85% gigabit broadband coverage by 2025, with the aim of delivering to as close to 100% as possible. Furthermore, it also helps deliver competing networks to more areas of the country, ultimately giving more choice to consumers about which networks they use.

2. Between 12 June and 4 September 2020 we ran a call for evidence on the Access to Infrastructure (ATI) Regulations. We asked respondents to set out their views on how the Regulations worked in practice, and whether there were any improvements that could be made to the Regulations, or elsewhere, to encourage greater infrastructure sharing in telecoms deployment. We received 32 responses to the call for evidence, from a mix of telecoms operators, non-telecoms infrastructure operators and industry groups.

Key themes from responses

3. In general, operators expressed limited interest in using non-Openreach or non-telecoms infrastructure, due to a general preference for telecoms infrastructure, as well as the availability of a more stringent regulated product on a near ubiquitous nationwide network.

4. There were also concerns from some alternative network providers that including more specific measures on some terms, in particular pricing, could have unintended consequences if it undermined investment cases in new networks.

5. Among non-telecoms providers, there was concern that strengthening the Regulations would undermine the original purpose of the infrastructure and would hand too much oversight to a non-sector specific regulator. In addition, they highlighted instances where they already shared infrastructure or were willing to do so under certain conditions, and that this behaviour should be encouraged rather than enforced.

6. However, respondents did highlight several areas where the Regulations could be improved, in particular around a) timelines for responding to requests, b) Ofcom’s enforcement powers, and c) clarity around what was in scope.

7. Respondents also highlighted that more could be done to reduce barriers to accessing land and to reduce barriers to information sharing.

Conclusions

8. Having reviewed responses to the call for evidence, we do not propose making major changes to the ATI Regulations at this time. We consider that doing so would be disproportionate, and our resources may be better focused on removing other key barriers for the sector. In line with the Regulations, the government will undertake a further review within the next five years.

9. However, we have identified some clarifications and improvements that could make the Regulations easier to use, namely:

• clarifying that publicly owned infrastructure is included in scope of the Regulations

• clarifying that the Regulations can be used for the purpose of deploying business broadband; and

• cutting some of the timescales to respond to information requests

10. Currently, making any changes to the Regulations would require primary legislation. However, we plan to introduce legislation that will give us the ability to amend the Regulations more quickly in future via secondary legislation. Any statutory instruments would be subject to a statutory duty to consult, and to the affirmative resolution procedure, in order to allow any changes to be fully scrutinised by industry and Parliament. The necessary primary legislation will be introduced when Parliamentary time allows through a suitable legislative vehicle.

11. In addition, whilst we are not proposing to make major changes to the Regulations, we consider that the existing Regulations can still be used to greater effect. There are some excellent examples of infrastructure sharing across the country, and we think there is scope for this to be more widespread. The government encourages all infrastructure operators in all sectors to work together on new innovative solutions and cross industry standards. This will facilitate greater benefits from, and enable easier access to, sharing infrastructure, such as helping to reduce the costs and environmental impacts of deployment.

12. Furthermore, by working across different sectors, operators can help unlock advantages from different technologies sharing space. For instance, telecoms is enabling greater monitoring of utilities infrastructure, including leak monitoring and energy usage, which may be particularly pertinent in light of industry’s imminent retirement of analogue telephony networks. This will help operators improve efficiencies in their own network, but also prepare our nation’s infrastructure for the challenges of the future as we move to a more sustainable world.

Introduction and background

Purpose of the Regulations

13. The Communications (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2016 (‘the ATI Regulations’) implemented in the UK measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (the Broadband Cost Reduction Directive). The ATI Regulations did not go beyond the minimum transposition requirements of the Directive.

14. The Regulations currently provide:

• a framework to share information between operators about the location of passive infrastructure

• a process for operators granting access to passive infrastructure on terms (including price) that are fair and reasonable to both parties

• a framework for network providers to request information on planned civil works relating to physical infrastructure (where those civil works are publicly funded, the legislation also allows network providers to coordinate their own works alongside them); and

• a dispute resolution mechanism for the parties involving Ofcom and onward appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal

15. The ATI Regulations state that they apply to the following types of infrastructure:

• electronic communications

• gas

• electricity, including public lighting

• heating

• water, including disposal or treatment of waste water and sewage, and drain system; and

• transport including railways, roads, ports and airports

16. Sharing infrastructure can significantly reduce the time and cost it takes to roll out new broadband networks. The government wants to make it easier for telecoms operators to reuse existing passive infrastructure - e.g. ducts, poles or masts^{[footnote 2]} - to deploy new telecom networks. To do this, we need to ensure there are few barriers to passive infrastructure sharing, and that the correct incentives exist at all layers. As such, we were interested in exploring ways in which the Access to Infrastructure Regulations could be improved to promote such infrastructure sharing. This review considered whether there are improvements that could be made to the Regulations to further boost investment in infrastructure and encourage the use of infrastructure sharing to deploy telecoms networks.

The benefits of sharing infrastructure

17. Civil works, in particular installing new ducts and poles (or passive infrastructure), comprise the majority of costs of deploying gigabit broadband networks, with some estimates suggesting this could be as high as 80% of the total deployment costs. In its Wholesale Fixed Market Review 2021, Ofcom estimated that the reuse of Openreach’s duct and pole network cut the costs of deployment by around half.

18. Reusing existing infrastructure can therefore significantly reduce the time, cost and environmental impact of rolling out new broadband networks, and can be a huge asset in reaching the government’s gigabit broadband coverage and Net Zero emissions targets. Furthermore, it also helps deliver competing networks to more areas of the country, ultimately giving more choice to consumers about which networks they use.

19. Ofcom has already strengthened other operators’ ability to access Openreach’s duct and pole network, although this does not apply to other telecoms networks or other owners of passive infrastructure (e.g. electricity or transport networks). Although access to Openreach infrastructure, as the largest fixed network in the UK, on regulated terms will be crucial in delivering coverage ambitions, telecom operators also stand to benefit significantly from sharing other infrastructure under the ATI Regulations. For instance, other telecoms providers may have infrastructure in those areas where Openreach’s coverage does not reach or where it is not in good condition. In addition, the ATI Regulations can also help operators access ‘micro-monopolies’, where network builders focus on one area of the country, or on particular types of premises, for instance multi-dwelling units or new build developments.

20. DCMS has also worked with industry to encourage greater infrastructure sharing in the mobile market in order to increase coverage in the hardest to reach areas. The Shared Rural Network (SRN) is a £1 billion deal between the UK’s four mobile network operators and the government, and will deliver 4G coverage to 95% of the UK, underpinned by legally binding coverage commitments. By upgrading existing networks and working together on shared infrastructure and new sites, the SRN will increase the parts of the UK that get 4G coverage from all four mobile network operators from 66% to 84%. This will increase choice and boost productivity in rural areas giving the UK the world-class digital infrastructure it deserves.

21. Beyond telecoms infrastructure, operators may also stand to benefit from accessing utilities’ infrastructure, particularly in remote areas where utilities or transport infrastructure exists but telecoms infrastructure is sparse or old. There are also potential benefits to this type of sharing for non-telecoms infrastructure operators. Sharing infrastructure can be a way to bring in extra revenue, and there may be technological benefits for utilities being deployed with communications infrastructure, for instance with regard to monitoring networks.

22. The benefits of new telecoms networks being deployed alongside utilities may also become more pertinent over the next few years as the legacy Public Switched Telephone Network, currently used for monitoring many remote sites, is upgraded. While new technologies, such as full fibre, bring numerous benefits including improved speed, resilience and reduced running costs, they also require more resilient energy solutions to function. By deploying together, utility networks can maintain their existing monitoring functions and build resilience to both networks.

23. There are already examples of operators working together across different sectors to improve coverage, increase efficiencies and help tackle key challenges facing our infrastructure sectors today, including delivering sustainable infrastructure and reaching government’s Net Zero targets. We highlight some examples of cross-sector sharing in the next section. The government strongly supports these initiatives, and would encourage other operators to work together to meet these challenges.

Call for Evidence responses

24. To inform our review, we issued a call for evidence in June 2020 on the ATI Regulations. We were keen to understand the appetite among telecoms network operators for increased use of existing telecoms and non-telecoms passive infrastructure and what changes could be made to those Regulations to encourage this. We also asked interested stakeholders whether:

• the Regulations addressed a market need

• there were procedural aspects that need improvement; and

• there were any other improvements that can be made to encourage the use of the Regulations

25. The call for evidence closed on 4 September 2020, and responses have informed our conclusions in this review. We received 32 responses in total to our call for evidence, from telecoms operators, other non-telecoms infrastructure operators and other industry groups. This accounts for the vast majority of the fixed telecoms market.

Overview of call for evidence responses

Telecoms stakeholders

26. In general, operators’ interest in using non-Openreach and, in particular, non-telecoms passive infrastructure was limited. There was a general preference for using telecoms infrastructure where possible, since it is purposefully designed to house these technologies and there is already an existing regulatory product. Several providers in particular were concerned that any reforms to the ATI Regulations should not undermine the regulatory product on Openreach.

27. There were also concerns expressed from telecoms providers that changes to the Regulations could undermine investments. Many expressed concern that more specific rules on pricing - for instance to bring these into line with Ofcom’s charge controls on Openreach duct and pole access pricing - would have a strong negative effect, as it would not take into consideration smaller operators’ scale and market power.

28. However, respondents did highlight several areas where the ATI Regulations could be improved. Several suggested that the Regulations were unused in part as they were unclear, time-consuming and too onerous for access seekers. In particular, they highlighted concerns around:

• clarity around what was in scope (i.e. could it be used to deploy mobile networks, business broadband, publicly owned infrastructure)

• timelines for responding to requests; and

• Ofcom’s enforcement powers.

Pricing

The Regulations do not set the price that infrastructure owners can charge access seekers, although they do require that access should be allowed on fair and reasonable terms. Ofcom issues guidance on what they would consider fair and reasonable terms, and can arbitrate on pricing in the case of a dispute. In establishing a fair price, Ofcom must:

• (a) ensure that the infrastructure operator has a fair opportunity to recover its costs, and

• (b) take into account the impact of the access on the operator’s business plan, including the investments made by the operator, in particular in the physical infrastructure used for the provision of high-speed electronic communications services.

Some respondents requested more transparency in setting prices and suggestions included: some form of standardising prices; benchmarking prices; a ‘checking’ process to ensure sharers paying a fair price; tasking industry working groups to create some general product specifications so that individual operators do not have to create a reference product; or requiring operators to publish rates. A limited number of respondents suggested that costs should be made consistent with, or benchmarked to, the Openreach duct and pole access product, which is subject to Ofcom charge controls.

However, many more respondents highlighted that setting a universal price based on the regulated, cost based price for the market incumbent would be highly disproportionate. In addition, the scale and market power of Openreach means that their cost based price, implemented by Ofcom to correct for significant market power, would be far below that which could be borne by other providers.

Non-telecoms stakeholders

29. Among non-telecoms operators, there were concerns that revising the Regulations to give telecoms operators greater rights, or to set more specific pricing measures, could undermine the original purpose of the infrastructure. While many highlighted that they were willing to share infrastructure with telecoms operators, they stressed that this should not be done to the detriment of their primary duties. Non-telecoms providers also expressed worries about being regulated by a body that was not their sector specific regulator.

30. Furthermore, among non-telecoms providers, several highlighted that they were already willing to open up their infrastructure to telecoms operators, or already did so. Respondents said that the best way to encourage infrastructure sharing between different sectors was to highlight the reciprocal benefits for non-telecoms providers from sharing their infrastructure with a telecoms operator. We have highlighted some examples of cross-sector sharing in the box below.

Examples of non-telecoms infrastructure sharing

Network Rail is currently seeking private sector investment of up to £1 billion in its trackside fibre optic cable network, in return for the right to commercialise spare capacity. There are over 16,000km of fibre cables deployed alongside the railway that support rail operations such as signalling, whichrequire upgrading.Given the railway’s geographical reach, the trackside fibre optic network has the potential to provide backhaul connectivity to some of the UK’s hardest to reach areas.Network Rail’s Project Reach has clear benefits for passengers, lineside neighbours and railway operations. It also enables the investor to support and benefit from the roll-out of world class digital infrastructure, to build back better and support the UK’s gigabit fibre ambition.

Additionally, five water companies have been brought together as part of the technical user group for fibre in sewers. The group was set up by network operator SSE (now known as Neos Networks) and is independently chaired. In return for rollout at minimal disruption, SSE will aid water companies by deploying sewer network monitoring technology which provide real time data on waste water flows. SSE had already signed an operating licence with Thames Water enabling them to deploy fibre for City of London customers in London sewers.

In June 2021, the Energy Networks Association published their EB TP4 document Engineering Recommendations for Telecommunication Providers and Distribution Network Operators joint use of poles, which offers a common set of terms and standards to allow broadband providers to access electricity assets for broadband installation. All electricity networks must adhere to this document which should make gaining access to their assets much easier. There are already good examples of telecoms operators and electricity providers working together to deploy networks. For instance, Truspeed has worked closely with Western Power Distribution Networks to make use of low voltage electricity poles for final drops and local access as we noted in the Call for Evidence.

DCMS, working with other government departments, will be piloting Fibre in Water as an alternative way of deploying digital connectivity (gigabit-capable, 4G and 5G) in the hardest to reach areas of the UK. As well as providing digital connectivity in these locations, the project will also look to reduce the amount of clean water wasted a day (c.3 billion litres), de-risk the Public Switched Telephone Network switch off between 2021 and 2025 and future proof both the water and telecoms industries.

High level conclusions

31. From analysing these responses, we consider that there is limited interest from industry in pursuing any major changes to the ATI Regulations. We believe that doing so would be disproportionate, and our resources may be better focused on removing other key barriers for the sector.

32. Currently, operators are focused on rolling out their networks and some respondents noted that a major change may distract from this and slow down the rollout. We do note, however, that the ATI Regulations may be more useful in the future where they may help promote competition where infrastructure is already in place, rather than assist in rollout. The government will carry out a further review of the ATI Regulations within the next five years, in line with section 24 of the Regulations, by which time the government may consider further reforms are needed. Therefore we do not propose to make major changes at this time.

33. However, respondents did highlight several areas where the Regulations could be improved, which we set out in detail below. We consider that some amendments and clarifications can be made. In particular, we have identified clarifications around the scope of the Regulations, and some amendments to timelines for responding to requests and Ofcom’s enforcement powers.

34. In addition, respondents also highlighted that more could be done to reduce barriers to accessing land and to reduce barriers to information sharing. However we consider that there is action being taken elsewhere by the government to address these issues.

Lack of clarity

35. Many respondents noted that the ATI Regulations could benefit from more clarity - either generally or related to specific points. The following points were raised by telecoms operators as needing additional clarity:

• whether the Regulations apply to publicly owned infrastructure

• whether the Regulations apply to in-building infrastructure such as multiple-dwelling units

• whether the Regulations could be used to deploy business connectivity services; and

• whether the Regulations could be used to deploy mobile infrastructure

Publicly owned infrastructure

36. The Regulations themselves do not mention public or private infrastructure. Much of the UK’s infrastructure is operated by private companies (including gas, electricity and water distribution), although there may be a small number of public sector bodies engaged in these activities, including, notably, public lighting. As such, the government recognises that the current phrasing of the Regulations may be ambiguous when it comes to publicly owned infrastructure. However, the government considers that the ATI Regulations should apply to all passive infrastructure operators. We propose to take appropriate action to clarify our position.

In-building infrastructure

37. Section 7 of the ATI Regulations sets out that the Regulations can be used to request access to in-building infrastructure from a rights holder. It notes that in-building infrastructure means:

‘physical infrastructure or installations at the end-user’s location, including elements under joint ownership, intended to host wired or wireless access networks, where such access networks are capable of delivering electronic communications services and connecting the access point of the building with the network termination point’.

A rights holder means any person who holds a right to use— (a) an access point; or (b) in-building physical infrastructure.

38. In addition to the ATI Regulations, Part R of the Building Regulations 2010 was introduced in 2016 to transpose Article 8 of the EU Broadband Cost Reduction Directive. It requires that all new buildings, and buildings undergoing major renovation have in-building physical infrastructure to enable connections to super-fast broadband but does not require the broadband connection itself.

Business Connectivity Services

39. The ATI Regulations were made to assist in deploying ‘public electronic communications networks’. The definition of a ‘public electronic communications network’ requires the network to be provided wholly or mainly for the purpose of making electronic communications services available to the public. This would therefore include network providers which provide connectivity to both the public and businesses. However, under the current drafting of the Regulations, there is ambiguity about whether this would apply to business-only network providers. As such, we propose to take appropriate action to explicitly include these networks in scope.

Mobile infrastructure

40. The Regulations note that they are for the purpose of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks which are ‘capable of delivering access to broadband services at speeds of at least 30 megabits per second’. The Regulations are technology-neutral. government considers that they can therefore be used to deploy mobile infrastructure where it is capable of deploying broadband that can deliver speeds of 30 megabits per second and above, which includes 4G and 5G networks. We do not consider that the ATI Regulations need to be amended to make this clear. However, we plan to consult on this issue.

Timescales

41. The ATI Regulations require infrastructure operators to respond to requests from access seekers within the following set timelines.

Request	Timescale to respond
Information about physical infrastructure (i.e. location, route, type, current use)	2 months
Surveys of physical infrastructure	1 month
Access to physical infrastructure	2 months
Access to in-building physical infrastructure	2 months
Information about civil works	2 weeks
Coordination with civil works funded from public funds	1 month

42. There is no consensus on what the most effective timing would be. While some respondents thought these were too short, several respondents did note that it was a time consuming process. In particular, it was generally noted that the 2 month deadline for providing information was too long, making the process commercially unviable. Where respondents suggested alternatives, they identified 4 to 5 weeks as a more appropriate timescale.

43. Therefore, we are keen to consult industry on the practicalities of shortening the period of time in which infrastructure operators should respond to requests for information about infrastructure from 2 months to 1 month.

Enforcement powers

44. Regulation 14 sets out Ofcom’s powers in relation to dispute resolution. This includes being able to fix the terms of a transaction or requiring an operator to pay reasonable costs and expenses. However, Ofcom does not have the power to find an operator in breach of the ATI Regulations; this is in contrast to some of Ofcom’s other dispute resolution powers, set out in the Communications Act 2003. It should be noted that a formal dispute has never been raised under the Regulations, although we understand that Ofcom has had a number of informal discussions with operators.

45. Whilst regulation 13(5) does set out the ability for Ofcom to impose an injunction, this has not been actioned so far. There are concerns that this would add another stage to the process which would make it more expensive and time-consuming. This would also be after Ofcom had determined what fair and reasonable terms are. Currently, Ofcom can resolve disputes between parties, but cannot find either party in breach of the Regulations themselves.

46. Since there has been no formal dispute resolution under the ATI Regulations, a situation has never occurred in which an injunction could be enforced. Giving Ofcom the power to impose penalties for breaches of the Regulations could help to improve engagement among infrastructure operators.

47. However, we would have to carefully consider the impact of extending Ofcom’s powers, and how such powers could be made effective. Furthermore, we would have to consider the impact this would have on non-telecoms providers, and whether a more explicit role should be given to other sector specific regulators. We therefore plan to consult further on this matter when government time allows.

Access rights

48. A major barrier to the re-use of infrastructure is the inclusion of certain provisions within the agreements that allow the installation of infrastructure on, under or over land. These agreements (sometimes known as wayleaves) are contracts between the infrastructure provider and landowner which, as a general rule, cannot be amended without the agreement of both parties. The original agreement between the infrastructure provider and landowner may contain specific restrictions with regards to sharing, preventing necessary upgrades or alterations required to enable sharing, or limiting the use of installed apparatus for specific purposes. This makes it necessary for the infrastructure provider to enter into their own agreement with the landowner - even in scenarios where there is no visual impact or burden on the landowner, e.g. in circumstances where the works relate to an underground duct.

49. For the operator, the need to enter into an agreement is burdensome, time-consuming and expensive. government has already taken action to address this, introducing automatic limited rights for operators to upgrade and share their apparatus. However, these rights only apply to agreements reached after December 2017, when the relevant legislative reforms came into effect.

50. For agreements reached prior to this period, the additional hurdle of having to obtain a new or revised agreement with a landowner - which may often include substantial additional payments - can deter operators from using existing infrastructure.

51. Many respondents noted the need for access rights for private land was a barrier to rollout and sharing infrastructure, and some noted uncertainty over what the current rules are.

52. The Electronic Communications Code, which forms part of the Communications Act 2003, is the legal framework underpinning rights to install and maintain electronic communications infrastructure on private and public land. The government committed to undertaking reforms to update the Code to ensure it is fit for purpose to deliver our gigabit-connectivity targets.

53. Responses to the ATI Regulations call for evidence have helped inform our consultation on potential reforms to the Electronic Communications Code, which was published in January 2021. The government announced in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May 2021 that we intend to legislate to reform the Electronic Communications Code when Parliamentary time allows. The government Response to the consultation was published on 24 November alongside the introduction of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill, which will give effect to the proposed reforms to the Code.

Sharing of information

54. There were a number of responses concerning the importance of information sharing. In the call for evidence, we noted that the Regulations do not specify a central coordination or single information point to help increase transparency and streamline the process, and that this may have led to an uneven application of the Regulations, resulting in information being provided in different formats.

Standardised forms

55. Several responses highlighted that greater clarity about what should be included in requests could help avoid delays resulting from multiple requests being made. The current Regulations set out that a request for access must:

• (a) be in writing

• (b) specify the infrastructure to which the request relates

• (c) be made with a view to deploying elements of a high-speed electronic communications network using that infrastructure

• (d) specify the network elements it proposes to deploy; and

• (e) specify the time frame required for deploying those elements

Requests for information must also conform to requirements (a)-(c).

56. Several respondents supported the creation of a standardised form, although others appreciated the flexibility of the current Regulations. Having a standardised approach or forms may make the process smoother by making it clear exactly what is required at each stage. Alternatively, issuing narrowly defined checklists was highlighted as a means to make it clear that all information is provided.

57. We do not intend to take further action to specify what information should be included in a request, as we believe the existing provisions are clear. Should the above be included in a request, infrastructure operators should be able to respond fully within the prescribed timelines. Infrastructure operators may also want to consider developing their own standard forms and templates, in order to speed up the processing of these requests, and the government would strongly encourage them, and wider industry organisations, to do so.

National Underground Asset Register

58. Many respondents noted that improvements to enable better information sharing or having a single point of information would be very useful. Many noted support in theory but highlighted some practical concerns such as security, and the disproportionate effect it would have on smaller providers.

59. The Geospatial Commission is working to develop a National Underground Assets Register (NUAR) covering telecoms, electricity, gas and water networks. The Commission is running pilots in London and the North East on creating a data sharing platform for asset owners and operators.

60. While the aim of this project is to improve the safety of streetworks and reduce the rate of accidental damage, it is also looking at answering some of the wider challenges of infrastructure data sharing, including creating a data-sharing framework and harmonised cross-sector data model for all types of infrastructure, including telecoms.

61. Considering action is already being taken elsewhere to consolidate datasets on infrastructure, we do not consider it proportionate to develop a separate single information point for telecoms infrastructure. While the work of the Geospatial Commission is initially considering strike avoidance, such data sharing and infrastructure mapping could be used in future to help network builders plan broadband deployment routes. DCMS will continue to work with the Geospatial Commission to support its work on data sharing.

Conclusions and next steps

62. Having considered responses to the call for evidence, we do not consider it either necessary or proportionate to make major changes to the ATI Regulations at present. We will continue to focus government resource on tackling larger barriers to deployment.

63. However, we do not believe that the ATI Regulations have been utilised to their full potential and therefore we consider that it may be proportionate to make some clarifications to the scope of the Regulations and some changes aimed at speeding up the processes and strengthening Ofcom’s powers to take enforcement action.

64. To do this, we want to establish a quicker and simpler process for amending the ATI Regulations in future. When Parliamentary time allows, we will create a power for the Secretary of State to amend the Regulations through secondary legislation, subject to consultation and the affirmative resolution procedure.

65. Thereafter, we intend to consult as soon as possible on our plans for potential changes to the Regulations, including:

• clarifying that publicly owned infrastructure is included in scope of the Regulations

• clarifying that the Regulations can be used for the purpose of deploying business broadband; and

• cutting some of the timescales to respond to information requests.

66. We consider that the Regulations are currently worded such that they can be used to deploy mobile infrastructure, where this can deliver high speed broadband. However, when consulting on the above changes, we plan to seek views from respondents on whether further changes are needed to clarify this. We also intend to explore further whether Ofcom should be given an explicit power to find operators in breach of the Regulations.

1. As of October 2021. ↩

2. Other examples of passive infrastructure include pipes, inspection chambers, manholes, cabinets, buildings or entries to buildings, antenna installations, and towers. ↩