Collision cable: providers want to be fined for damage caused by Internet connection
Telecom operators want to be fined for the damage they can cause to residential buildings by building Internet networks - penalties for damage to property and other violations can amount to 500 thousand rubles. The Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry for entrepreneurship in the housing and communal services has applied to the FAS with such an initiative. The authors of the appeal call this a mirror measure: since August, management companies have been threatened with fines if they interfere with the work of operators in the residential sector, but there are no reverse penalties. Experts and representatives of operators criticize the initiative — according to them, the work of providers is already overregulated, and the criminal Code often continues to prevent their access to "their" homes under far-fetched pretexts so as not to lose additional income.
Why do they propose to fine operators?
It is advisable to fine Internet service providers for violating the rules of work in apartment buildings, and the sanctions should be the same as those imposed on management companies for obstructing the work of communications specialists. The Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry on Entrepreneurship in the housing and Communal Services recommended that the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) study this issue (Izvestia has reviewed the appeal).
Since August 6, 2026, a law has been in force in Russia providing for fines for management organizations (from 100 to 500 thousand rubles) and their officials (from 10 to 40 thousand) if they do not allow Internet service providers to bring their networks into their homes. But at the same time, liability is not provided for signallers who violate the rules, it follows from the materials of the CCI committee.
Providers must carry out work in the houses in accordance with the agreed project, notify the Management Committee about the work, mark their cables, and do not damage the common property of the house. But these rules are regularly violated, said Susana Kirakosyan, Deputy Chairman of the CCI Committee. At the same time, liability is provided for management companies, but it is not established for operators for violating the rules, she said.
According to a survey conducted by the CCI committee, management organizations often complain about such violations and shortcomings on the part of providers as sagging cables, lack of markings to identify who owns the network, unauthorized connection to the power supply, etc.
Operators and the Criminal Code regularly clarify their relations in the courts. According to the committee, 88% of disputes are initiated by the Criminal Code regarding violations by operators, while the courts satisfy their claims in 85% of cases.
The arguments of the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry are justified, says Alexander Terentyev, a judicial expert of the Veta group.
"The introduction of large fines for management organizations in July 2026 for non—admission of providers created a pronounced legal imbalance, in which the Criminal Code is strictly responsible, and telecom operators are actually spared from administrative supervision in case of damage to common property," he believes. — Today, it is possible to involve the operator for damage to communal property only through lengthy lawsuits for damages under civil liability, while the Criminal Code for delayed access is fined instantly under an administrative article.
The appeal was received by the FAS and will be considered in due course, the agency said in response to a request from Izvestia.
In Russia, the legislation establishes the obligation of telecom operators to coordinate with management organizations the main stages of the placement and operation of communication networks, the Ministry of Finance noted. Providers are also responsible for violating the requirements. The rules of interaction between the telecom operator and the Criminal Code are fixed by a government decree adopted in 2024, and a draft clarification is currently being developed, the ministry said.
—The Ministry of Finance of Russia is ready for constructive interaction with all interested parties in legal relations and authorities to develop measures aimed at streamlining the placement of communication networks in apartment buildings," they added.
How are relations between signalmen and the Criminal Code regulated?
The operators disagree with the arguments of the CCI Committee. This is another proposal from a series that does not carry any semantic load and novelty for the development of the country's economy, business environment or communications industry, said Alkhas Mirzabekov, General Director of JSC YESK.
— Operators as business units have been operating for many years within the framework of the law "On Communications", the SNiP, and other documents. There are standards, they work," he stressed. — But large operators from among the members of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs apparently welcome and practice such initiatives, as they will increase pressure on small operators.
Taking into account earlier decisions in the communications industry, the average monthly subscriber's check has already increased from 400 to 1000-1200 rubles, and now many experts predict an increase to 5 thousand rubles, said Alkhas Mirzabekov.
However, major telecom operators reacted negatively to the initiative of the CCI commission.
"We do not share the CCI's arguments that providers regularly violate the rules of operation in apartment buildings," MTS told Izvestia. — For a number of years, various bodies and organizations affiliated with the Criminal Code have been articulating such arguments unfounded, but they cannot confirm them with statistics.
On the contrary, this Criminal Code violates the rules of interaction between the telecom operator and the management bodies of an apartment building, they said. All legislative measures have already been taken, it remains only to implement them, according to the company.
Operators continue to face violations of the order of interaction on the part of management organizations, including restrictions on access to the common property of apartment buildings and the creation of obstacles to the installation and maintenance of networks, Megafon also noted.
— It is incorrect to say that operators are not responsible for violating the rules of operation. In accordance with current legislation, the projects for the placement of communication networks of operators are coordinated with developers and managers and must meet the requirements of safety and sustainability," said Alexey Demyanenko, Director of Products and Tariffs for Rostelecom's mass segment.
For management companies, providers are a source of great additional income, so despite multiple initiatives, they often, under far—fetched pretexts, continue to prevent providers from entering "their" apartment buildings, said Denis Kuskov, CEO of TelecomDaily. Reducing this pressure is necessary not only for operators, but also for Internet users: the more providers there are in a house and the higher the level of competition, the lower the tariffs, he argues.
The root of the conflict between telecom operators and management companies in apartment buildings is that the Internet appeared much later than the regulatory construction documents were written, says Leonid Konik, a partner at ComNews Research.
— The Internet has become a de facto utility service, along with electricity, gas, water or heat supply. But the fundamental difference between all these services and communication services is that their suppliers are monopolists. At the same time, not a single criminal code attacks power engineers or Vodokanal with a claim for incorrect wiring or pipes. Nor does it try to stand between these resource-supplying organizations and the residents of the house. But Internet service providers have been victims of the arbitrariness of the Criminal Code and HOA for decades, who have been pulling money from them for the right to work in "their" house," Leonid Konik pointed out.
In its letter, the CCI committee is indignant about new regulatory initiatives: the abolition of mandatory approval of work on existing networks, recognition of the inspection act as agreed upon in the absence of the managing organization, the right to choose technical solutions and the number of cable entries by the telecom operator at its discretion, the expert continued. Each of these points deprives the Criminal Code of instruments of pressure on Internet providers, he is sure.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
