The draft government decree prepared by the Ministry of Construction seems to put an end to the access of providers to apartment buildings. However, this point, upon closer examination, again turns into an ellipsis
The Ministry of Construction has prepared a draft government decree “On Amendments to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 491 dated August 13, 2005”. If quickly and in official language — after the adoption of the document, communication networks will no longer be included in the common property of apartment buildings, if thoroughly and in fact — this resolution may still put an end to the seemingly endless story about the admission of providers to the MCD.
As the telegram channel “Laws of Construction” notes, now operators will finally be able to provide communication services to specific citizens without an additional general meeting of the owners of the premises. Complaints about the lack of alternative Internet in new buildings, the draconian tariffs of the only operator who has access to one or another MKD, the disgusting working connection that has nothing to replace, the “take what they give or live without the Internet” approach, and so on should go into the past. In the past, in theory, there should remain the requirements of developers, management companies and many residents to conclude a contract under which the operator must pay for the placement of equipment.
Finally, in the same place, in the past, management companies should remain, which, according to the observations of Denis Trotsenko, CEO of the Commonwealth Partnership, squeezed everything out of the existing situation as much as possible for their own selfish purposes: the price for entering a telecom operator into a house could be astronomical.
“The issue of non-discriminatory access of telecom operators to apartment buildings has been raised repeatedly over the past decade. Moreover, there were direct instructions from the President of the Russian Federation on this issue, but every time something was missing, something did not work out… Time passed and a new order appeared, with which something also did not work out. So the solution to the issue is not just overdue, but has long been overripe,” says Nikita Utkin, CEO of ANO Smart MKD, Deputy Director of ANO Platforma NTI, Chairman of TC 194.
Nikita Utkin, General Director of ANO “Smart MKD”, Deputy Director of ANO “Platform NTI”, Chairman of TC 194 “And finally, on March 27, 2024, the State Duma adopted, and on April 3, 2024, the Federation Council approved Federal Law No. 67-FZ dated 04/06/2024 “On Amendments to Article 6 of the Federal Law “On communications” and the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, which ensures the right to free access of telecom operators to apartment buildings. In continuation of the logic of these long overdue changes, the Ministry of Construction proposes to bring the rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 491 dated August 13, 2006, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 36 of the Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation, adding paragraph 7 of the Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building No. 491 with a new paragraph: ” the networks […] necessary for the provision of communication services to owners […] or tenants of residential premises in an apartment building under social lease agreements are not included in the common property.” Otherwise, all non-discriminatory access of telecom operators to apartment buildings would remain only on paper, since in order to install communication networks with all related infrastructure, it would remain necessary to hold complex and often opaque general meetings of owners. Now all these issues, as well as issues of maintenance and replacement of necessary elements of communication networks, will be directly on the telecom operators — which, of course, is logical. Providing high-quality communication services has long been a requirement of the most basic order everywhere. Therefore, the key, from my point of view, in this whole story is the quality of life of citizens. And for this it is necessary to provide high-quality services. And high—quality services should be provided by profile market players, preferably without excessive taxes, which they otherwise immediately shift, again, to the tenants of the houses. So in this case, we can state the fact: common sense prevailed.”
At the same time, the expert considers it necessary to clarify: the inclusion in paragraph 7 of the additional paragraph above does not in any way absolutize the idea that no information and/or communication infrastructure can be part of the common property. “We are talking specifically and exclusively about communication networks, which can only be operated by telecom operators, and this, as you know, is a licensed activity. Therefore, at the request of the owners of the MKD, they may well make a decision and install, use and maintain everything they wish, for example, in terms of distribution networks, including cable, telecommunications equipment or, for example, smart home systems,” says Nikita Utkin.
Voicing the developer’s view on the topic, Alexander Ruchev, President of Osnova Group, notes: “From the point of view of developing a competitive market, this is undoubtedly the right step. But in fact, the problem of monopolism of telecom operators and the Internet is practically nullified today, it was relevant a few years ago. Today, in the vast majority of cases, telecom operators freely enter new facilities and already inhabited houses without any obstacles.”
Alexander Ruchev, President of Osnova Group of Companies, “As for the prospects, the new rules are an absolute plus for residents. The rules fix the free choice of a telecom operator by each resident of an apartment building without the need for a general meeting of owners and, accordingly, the freedom to choose tariffs. This innovation will have no effect on developers, because this is not their business. They had no preferences from telecom operators and did not provide such services to residents. For a number of management companies, which until now could theoretically receive preferences from operators for admission to homes, these innovations can indeed become an ambiguous moment. Firstly, they may lose part of their income, and secondly, they will also be required to monitor the work on laying networks by these operators at their facilities, monitor the implementation of all norms and rules for ensuring the life of the house within these works, which will be an additional amount of work that previously did not exist. But I would like to emphasize that, for example, there have been no large-scale problems with monopolism in the capital region in the last few years.”
Perhaps the most important and interesting thing is to listen to what representatives of management companies think. To give an objective comment, it is necessary to try to understand the genesis of the issue, Denis Trotsenko believes.
Denis Trotsenko, CEO of the Commonwealth Partnership Management Company, “The developer builds communication networks at his own expense (or on co-investment terms, but more on this option later). He builds and keeps it on his balance sheet, because assigning the status of orphan networks is another story. It is logical that the developer transfers the networks to the Management Company, and the management company, in turn, monetizes them, since any network, no matter which one, requires maintenance and repair (rates in the commercial real estate market, for example, about $ 1 per square meter for network rental by telecom operators). Of course, this is a direct way of manipulating the Criminal Code by providers, due either to the actual need for financing services, or to the selfish ideas of the Criminal Code to artificially oppose the admission of alternative providers to the territory of the house. I think the reason for the proposed solutions is primarily this. The second option is to co—invest the developer and the telecom operator. Often, developers, in order to optimize costs at the initial stages of a project, involve a provider in its implementation, which at its own expense lays a communication channel (trench, cable, and so on). In this case, it is logical to assume that, having invested in the creation of an engineering system, the operator-investor will demand rental payments from competitors. Which, in fact, leads to two points. Firstly, developers strongly recommend that the Management Company monopolize the operator’s presence at the facility for about two years — this is the period during which the operator manages to recruit a sufficient number of subscribers to consolidate and return investments in the project. Secondly, the Criminal Code becomes a hostage to the situation with monopolization, but at the same time receives income from each subscriber in the database of the monopolist operator, acting, in fact, as an agent of the service for the provision of communication and Internet services. This is an excellent mechanism for securing the criminal code on an object without raiding. No one will open the landscaping to lay a new “last mile” highway.
As the expert emphasizes, each model has its pros and cons for residents. “If you turn off emotions, then, given the development of technology, operators from the top five (namely, such can afford co-investment) all are about the same in terms of technology and pricing flexibility. A plus may be a number of additional services that are free of charge for residents: for example, free Wi-Fi in parking lots and courtyards, surveillance cameras with image output to the MCD mobile application, and the like. In addition, large operators regularly organize various social events — film screenings, children’s matinees and so on,” says Denis Trotsenko.
But here’s what’s especially curious: in his opinion, everything looks like the new rules depriving the owner of the network of exclusivity, and in principle, this very topic is being lobbied by someone very powerful. Otherwise, why not apply a similar approach to, say, heat, water, electricity, the expert wonders.
See also:
Effective ways to protect your business
How to successfully resist scammers?
What should I invest in so as not to lose?
Is it possible to prevent the theft of personal data?
Objects of special regulation: What awaits them?
Technology import substitution: pros and cons
“Anyway, if the communication network is not a common property, this burden lies on the developer, who will still provide the channel with care. Or, ridiculously, they will dig trenches near the house until something catastrophic happens (damage the sewer, heating or something else), or wires will be let through the air. And there is also electricity needed to power the communication equipment, and a wall, which is already a communal property… But this is a completely different story,” says Denis Trotsenko, hinting that in fact, in the final it is again necessary to put not a dot, but an ellipsis.
English 
Russian 
German 
Polish