Who pays for fibre inside rented apartment buildings, and which providers may use the resulting network, remain disputed questions in Germany's telecommunications bill. At a 4 November 2026 hearing of the German Bundestag's Committee on Digital Affairs and State Modernisation, consumer representatives supported an orderly move from copper to fibre but demanded different cost rules. Operators, researchers and the Federal Network Agency disagreed over proposed access obligations. For households, the debate links the financing of building wiring with their eventual choice of internet provider.
Key facts
- The existing fibre-provision charge is capped at €60 annually and €540 in total per dwelling.
- The rules currently cover fibre infrastructure installed by 31 December 2027.
- The bill would introduce access rules for fibre networks and infrastructure inside buildings.
- Comments on the Federal Network Agency's separate consultation on open-access pricing are due by 16 November 2026.
Which apartment-building cost rule is disputed?
Section 72 of the existing Telecommunications Act allows a network operator, subject to specified conditions, to agree a provision charge with a property's owner. Conditions include equipping the building for the first time with infrastructure consisting entirely of fibre, connecting it to a public very-high-capacity network and guaranteeing readiness for operation during the agreed period.
The annual ceiling is €60 and the total ceiling €540 per dwelling. The charge may normally run for no more than five years. If that period is insufficient to refinance the costs, it may extend to no more than nine years. Operators must justify measures costing more than €300. These are limits on a particular infrastructure-financing mechanism, rather than a general price for an internet subscription.
The permitted calculation covers actual costs of passive infrastructure and fibre cables inside the building, plus a reasonable return on capital. Public subsidies and costs borne by third parties must be deducted. Bills must disclose the charge, collection period and total costs. The existing mechanism therefore regulates both the maximum amount and the investment costs that may be included.
At the hearing, the German Tenants' Association opposed extending the provision currently limited to infrastructure installed by the end of 2027. Its representative Stefan Bentrop called for abolition and criticised additional housing costs for tenants. Susanne Blohm of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations likewise argued that owners should pay for construction they commission. Those demands concern who bears the cost, rather than whether fibre is technically needed.
Why distinguish network access from building wiring?
The bill's proposed sections 22a and 22b address different parts of the connection. Federal Network Agency president Klaus Müller told the hearing that section 22a concerns access where a region is expected to have only one fibre network and companies cannot agree voluntarily. Section 22b would open infrastructure inside buildings to competitors. A network available along a street does not, by itself, settle whether another provider can reach an apartment.
Existing section 72(6) already requires operators using this provision-charge model to grant service providers permanent access on request to passive building infrastructure and fibre cables at the building handover point. Access must be transparent, non-discriminatory and free of charge. The obligation passes to the owner after the provision period. This duty belongs to that particular financing model; it is not a substitute for the whole proposed access regime.
Witnesses disagreed over the wider rules' likely effects. Sven Knapp of broadband industry association BREKO warned that section 22a would endanger investment and voluntary cooperation. Bernd Sörries of research institute WIK argued that the provisions reflected cooperation already agreed in the market and could strengthen competition on existing infrastructure. Müller urged lawmakers to adopt both provisions unchanged while continuing to favour voluntary negotiations.
How would wholesale pricing support provider choice?
A separate Federal Network Agency consultation launched on 22 September 2026 sets out the economic problem behind open access. Service providers must negotiate with numerous network operators, many of them regional. The agency says this creates high transaction and negotiation costs. Its pricing principles are intended to make those agreements easier.
The proposed approach derives the wholesale access price from the network builder's retail price, minus an appropriate margin. That gap should allow another service provider to offer an equivalent product while covering its costs. This is a price between companies for using a network, whereas the section 72 provision charge is a particular way of financing infrastructure within a building. The two charges answer different questions.
The agency says it examined retail prices and agreed wholesale charges when developing the principles. They remain under consultation and constitute a regulatory process alongside the parliamentary bill.
What links copper switch-off with competition?
The copper-to-fibre transition raises a further dispute over how the regulator should consider the switch-off behaviour of powerful operators. Tomaso Duso of the Monopolies Commission advocated a provider-neutral criterion tied to the extent of network deployment. Legal scholar Thomas Fetzer criticised certain expanded examination duties as contrary to European law. These are opposing assessments of the bill, rather than a decided legal case.
Faster permissions are another contested element. Municipal representative Klaus Ritgen criticised the proposed reduction from three months to two before consent is deemed granted, arguing that it would pressure the responsible authorities and risk superficial examination. The next fixed date in the separate pricing consultation is 16 November: the Federal Network Agency accepts comments until then. Decisions on the legislation remain with the parliamentary process.
