Tenants are confused on the Web: why do we have to overpay for home Internet

Over the years of work in the State Duma, I have had the opportunity to participate in more than a hundred parliamentary hearings, but I do not remember such representativeness of the participants and such intensity of passions as at the hearings that I attended last week. The hall for 250 seats was packed, five seats in the presidium were occupied by two deputy chairmen of the Duma and three deputies, authors of the bills under discussion, even for the relevant minister there was only a place in the hall, but his very presence only emphasized the importance of the topic. For about three hours, the audience did not get tired of exploding with applause or cries of protest, and many performances were distinguished by emotionality unusual for this genre.

It was difficult to explain this by the special urgency of the topic under discussion – ensuring the rights of citizens to access the Internet in apartment buildings. Since it is clearly not in the focus of public discussions, it was clear that two poorly compatible ideological positions or interest groups clashed in the hall.

What is the root of the disagreement? After all, it would seem that one of the most prosperous areas of our life was discussed. According to international statistics, 88% of citizens in Russia have access to the Internet (in the world as a whole 64%), they use this access on average 8 hours a day (in the world 6.6 hours). What part of this time they are provided with mobile access is not reported, but it is clear that the bulk of the traffic falls on the home. And, being in it, it is preferable in terms of price and quality to have unlimited fixed high-speed access – home Internet. Around how to properly evaluate and how to ensure its availability, and there was such a heated discussion.

We are used to the fact that at least four all-Russian telecom operators offer mobile Internet, and such competition does not allow any of them to overcharge and makes everyone monitor the quality of their services, compare with competitors, so as not to lose customers. Alas, with the home Internet, the picture is completely different. There are many times more providers here, but there are much fewer real offers for residents of apartment buildings. At the hearings, data was given: in every fifth such house, only one operator provides home Internet services, in 50% – two, and only in 30% of houses residents have the opportunity to choose between the offers of three or more operators. And this means that in the vast majority of urban homes, Internet users are forced to overpay and put up with low access speeds, because they have too narrow a choice or none at all. And this is not only in individual houses, the FAS representative spoke at the hearings about the facts of monopolization by operators of entire microdistricts, and representatives of the regions spoke about the lack of choice for consumers even within the boundaries of individual cities and districts.

What is the reason? Maybe in many homes, most telecom operators do not want to work? Or agreed to divide the market for the sake of high profits? They deny this, and the antimonopoly service does not confirm this. I think this is impossible: in such a competitive market, the struggle is literally for each consumer, so no one would neglect an apartment building if it were possible to enter this house with their own equipment, which requires several square meters to be installed in the attic, in the basement or in another common area with limited access.

But all such places are the common property of the owners. According to the Housing Code, only they have the right to allow the telecom operator to use the meters necessary for placing equipment under certain conditions. To do this, they must hold a meeting and make a decision, for which the owners who own at least two-thirds of the total area of ​​​​the house will vote. Since this is an almost impossible task, the operator goes to the house management company, which alone can solve this problem, whether by washing, rolling, or forging the minutes of the meeting, about which the owners, most likely, will never know, and why should they know, because as a result, they will only benefit – their choice will expand.

The management company will also benefit. She needs funds, and she is not obliged to do this for free. Here I don’t mean a bribe, although I’ve heard about it, but an official fee from the operator for the use of part of the common property of the house. Upon entering the house, the operator will reimburse these costs by including them in the price of the service offered. Competition could hold him back, but now he himself is not interested in the appearance of competitors in the house and is ready to encourage the management company not to help them enter here, which is even more legitimate for the company than to help.

As a result, the losers are consumers and those operators who have not shown great ability to informally circumvent the requirements of the law. And another country for which universal free high-speed access to the Internet has become an important condition for development.

Telecom operators actively raised this problem, and in 2016 the president gave the first instruction to the government to solve it. How it was executed is clear from the fact that in 2019 a second order followed, and in July last year, a third one, where it is already directly indicated what the decision should consist of. Four months later, two chairmen of relevant committees of the Duma, together with the first deputy chairman of the Federation Council and the chairman of its key committee, introduced a bill providing, in accordance with the president’s instructions, the possibility of connecting multi-apartment buildings to the Internet by telecom operators according to standard technical conditions on the basis of an agreement with any of the homeowners in this house without the need for a decision by all its owners, but with the obligatory granting to such operators of the right to place the equipment necessary for this in the house free of charge.

This bill was submitted to the Duma on November 17, 2022, and the very next day an alternative draft of two no less authoritative deputies received registration. It also declares the obligation of the manager of common property in an apartment building to provide telecom operators with access to this property to accommodate their equipment, but not free of charge, and such access is not an unconditional right of each operator, but a reward to the winners in the competition between operators for the support of owners. And although a cardinal simplification of the conditions for the expression of the will of the owners is envisaged, operators are invited to continue to compete for the attractiveness of not their services for consumers, but their conditions for those who manage the house on behalf of the owners. So I consider the first draft to meet the interests of consumers, and the second, supposedly protecting the rights of owners, to the interests of third parties. About what I also have told, speaking at hearings.

At the same time, he felt sympathy for the most ardent, albeit a small part of the audience – public activists of housing self-government from different regions. These people are trying to organize the residents of their homes to jointly decide on how best to use their common property. If there were a majority of these among us, I think there would be no need to discuss this topic in the Duma, and in the attics and basements of our houses, without paying for a place, the devices of all operators who wished to enter here would peacefully coexist, and each of us would freely choose which who arranged it more for price, quality or their ratio. While we are still very far from this, the protection of our sacred right of private ownership of the common property of the house will most often be used by someone as a decoration for their own benefit to the detriment of our interests.

Considering the President’s instructions and the government’s position, I have no doubt which draft will be adopted in the first reading. After that, its finalization for the second reading will begin, and I drew the attention of the relevant committees to its provisions, which, in my opinion, should be corrected. In particular, according to the bill, the government must, within two months after its entry into force, approve the procedure for the interaction of a telecom operator intending to enter a house with its equipment, and a person managing this house, without whose participation it is impossible to do so. If this order is not spelled out in sufficient detail and unambiguously, the operator may encounter sabotage, which will be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Therefore, he suggested that the deputies ensure that the draft procedure for interaction was prepared even before the adoption of the bill in the second reading and had time to go through a discussion with the participation of all interested parties. The Minister has confirmed that this is possible, so we will wait for his introduction soon.