Original article ISPreview UK:
The Deputy CEO of broadband network operator Openreach (BT), Katie Milligan, has today responded to some of the “fiery debates” and “noise” that has recently been created by rivals over the regulated solution for sharing their existing cable ducts and poles (PIA – Physical Infrastructure Access), which some have complained is unfairly priced.
Ofcom has long required Openreach to provide access to their existing cable ducts and poles via the regulated Physical Infrastructure Access (PIA) product, which has been extremely successful. This enables rival networks to run their own fibre optic cables via the incumbent’s existing infrastructure – cutting down on build costs, disruption (fewer street works etc.) and speeding up rollouts of gigabit-capable full fibre (FTTP) broadband.
Katie states that billions of pounds of investment have flooded into new gigabit-capable networks “since PIA was introduced“, although various other regulatory and legislative changes, as well as funding schemes, also fuelled that investment boom. But we should add that it still took a fair few years before Ofcom and Openreach made PIA attractive enough to be viable and efficient at scale, so it wasn’t a slam dunk from day one, not by any stretch.
Nevertheless, more than 170 companies have now signed up to use it, and those companies have placed orders to use more than 1.3 million poles (Openreach has a total of c.4 million poles across the UK) and over 193,000 kilometres of underground duct. “That’s 31% of our poles and 39% of our duct network. And the result? Over a million more customers have been connected to full fibre broadband, in all corners of the UK“, said Katie.
Speaking of telecoms poles, which aren’t exactly the most popular of street infrastructure these days (here), Katie claims that use of PIA has also “avoided more than three million new poles being erected in rural areas so far“. But admittedly this is somewhat of a subjective assessment, since in some areas network operators could have alternatively built underground instead (although this is often too expensive to be viable).
The Alternative View
Despite this, some network operators are currently using Ofcom’s ongoing Telecoms Access Review 2026 (TAR), which will cover the 2026 to 2031 period, to complain that PIA is still not fairly priced and needs to be tweaked in order to level the playing field (here, here and here) – particularly in rural areas where competition is still a work-in-progress and deployment costs are much higher for everybody.
Katie Milligan said:
Of course, price will always be a debate. Who doesn’t want more for less? Every customer I know does. And it’s worth noting that the price of PIA is set by Ofcom, not by us. But I’ve been surprised by some claims that PIA doesn’t represent good value for money or that Openreach doesn’t charge itself for using our passive network. This is simply not true.
For a start, it can cut the cost of building fibre networks by around half according to the regulator. And that stands to reason. Because using PIA means not spending a ton of money on construction. It means you can launch new services in a fraction of the time it’d take to source and erect your own poles. And the proof’s in the pudding. We get brilliant feedback and high ratings from PIA customers consistently and around a third of our duct and pole network is being used.
Meanwhile, orders continue flooding in, so I’m not exaggerating when I say that PIA is one of our most valued products. But the reality is that PIA customers pay just 4% towards the £850 million cost of maintaining the network but use a lot more of it than that. The rest of the cost is borne fully by Openreach. So, in terms of value, the prices are probably too low. They’re certainly not sustainable in the longer term.
Openreach has made that remark about the £850m cost in FY24 before, but it should be noted that this figure reflects ALL duct and pole associated costs, not just those relating to PIA/Altnets. On the other hand, rival networks don’t pay upfront for network adjustments, and systems development costs aren’t included in their PIA prices, so there’s a wider context to consider that doesn’t always come across in the soundbites from both sides.
However, Katie goes on to agree that “building fibre to rural communities is expensive“, which is something that everybody can agree on. But rather than point to PIA as a problem, she instead suggests that the “best operators” find solutions through “innovation, skills and experience to solve problems, reduce their costs and bridge the rural gap … And they build strong partnerships with local and national governments to reach the very toughest areas, under schemes like Project Gigabit, where the costs of PIA get reflected in everyone’s bids for public funding.”
The reality is that most rural-focused network operators already do all or most of these things, but in some areas the costs – PIA or no PIA – are still too high for deployments to be viable. Despite this, the government’s aim of reaching “nationwide” (c.99%) UK coverage of gigabit-capable broadband by 2030 still looks to be achievable (we’re currently on 86%+), although tackling the remaining gap is still going to be tricky (LEO satellites and mobile/wireless broadband solutions may have to be used for those).
Finally, Katie concludes by calling on Openreach’s rivals, like Virgin Media, to do as they’ve done with PIA and share access to their own ducts and poles.
Katie Milligan said:
We think other companies, like VMO2, should be sharing their ducts and poles on the same transparent terms and prices as we do. While the regulation to share other passive networks exists – it is called the Access to Telecoms Infrastructure (ATI) regulation – it’s simply not working. Because unlike our PIA product, there’s no clear and published rate cards and negotiating access on a case-by-case basis is nigh-on impossible.
That’s why we’ve asked the Government to look again at the regulation. Openreach was created to enable competition, so it’s in our nature, and PIA is a perfect example of that. But others doing the same could amplify the greater good even more. The current regulations for network sharing have never worked effectively but, with a rethink and by working together as an industry, we can accelerate the journey to a bright connected future for the UK.
Ofcom has previously rejected the above idea, which is partly because Virgin Media’s closed network has largely stayed under the coverage level that might otherwise deem them to have Significant Market Power (SMP). This may be partly why some of the operator’s parents (Liberty Global and Telefonica) have sought to continue their network expansion, albeit via an open access model, under a new company – nexfibre. But so far, we’ve not seen any indication that the status quo will change.
In addition, none of Openreach’s smaller rivals in the alternative network space are even close to having SMP. Forcing PIA upon smaller operators in a weaker and higher risk position, particularly in this climate, would not be without negative consequences. But INCA’s Infrastructure Sharing Group (ISG) is separately still working to produce a new sharing framework for alternative networks, although we’re still awaiting more details on that.
“Over the last few years we’ve focused on developing PIA to support fibre build, now we increasingly need to focus as an industry on the rules of engagement where competition now exists, or “working together” as we call it,” concluded Katie. Easier said than done in this market of much layered complexity and competition.
