Loading Text-to-Speech...
Before 9.30 in the morning, Maria rushes down her stairs apartment building Her in Marousi. She's already late and headed to the basement to get her car out of the garage. Nothing foretells that this route will evolve into unexpected controversy over the installation fibre optics.
With the edge of her eye she distinguishes a man in a working uniform, who is filming the space. «Sorry, what exactly are you doing?» She asks him, trying to keep her cool. The answer comes immediately, with a tone that leaves no room for doubt. «I'm the technician. I'm doing an autopsy on vertical fiber wiring.».
The explanation surprises her. Maria has owned her apartment and lived in the apartment building for over a decade. It has not been informed that work is to be carried out, nor has it been called upon to consent. Directly addressed to the administrator, who declares complete ignorance of the presence of a crew. He had not signed any relevant approval.
The thread of the case led to a second-floor tenant, who was determined to gain a fiber optic connection at any cost. According to what emerged, he signed himself as administrator, without having this capacity, and started the process without any of the other owners knowing anything. The facility didn't go any further.
Maria's case, which is only individual, highlights the importance of the consent of the owners and the role of the administrator in relation to the provider who will undertake vertical wiring. This is because intense competition between the telecommunications companies has brought to the fore new conflicts, but also ambiguity surrounding the process.
In recent times, this competition has led to the phenomenon of double vertical cable in apartment buildings. The issue has taken such dimensions that the POME She intervened with her announcement last week, calling it Ministry of Digital Governance and Committee on Telecommunications and Post Offices To solve it.
The basic principle is simple. After finding out which provider has developed fiber optic infrastructure in the area, the administrator, with the consent of the owners, selects the company that will install the main box in the building. From there, however, the difficulties begin.
The agreement of the three telecommunications providers and PPC's entry into the market, which changed the data.
What happens when a tenant chooses a different provider than the one who installed the basic infrastructure? In order to avoid new interventions and second cables, about two years ago the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances. OTE, the Vodafone and Nova agreed to provide mutual access to fibre optic networks at wholesale level.
The agreement, however, did not include PPC, as it had not yet entered the development of fibre optic networks. Since then, however, it has developed its own network, which in several areas of Attica overlaps with already existing infrastructure, mainly OTE.
Today in the apartment buildings selected by PPC to install vertical wiring, if a tenant then wants to connect with a different provider, his service often contradicts the refusal of other providers and in particular OTE. As he argues, he cannot «button» its equipment to the PPC distributionr, as it explains, there is no wholesale agreement between the two companies. Thus, either he refuses to serve the tenant or allegedly proposes to pass his own central box, meaning second vertical wiring with new interventions in the common areas, additional cables and new holes in the building. This practice can lead to new controversy among owners for no meaningful reason since the installation already exists.
The problem does not arise when the original distributionr belongs to Nova or Vodafone, as with the wholesale agreement concluded with OTE, the three companies can use the same infrastructure, allowing OTE to install its equipment in the distribution of Nova or Vodafone and vice versa. This agreement was concluded at a time when PPC had not yet entered the telecommunications infrastructure market.
Atypical coordination between OTE, Nova and Vodafone had also been preceded by the allocation of their network development areas to limit overlaps. However, when PPC entered the market for fiber optics, it chose to develop its network in areas where OTE had already invested, as it was considered one of the most commercial ones. A choice that, according to market sources, caused intense discomfort to OTE. Thus, competition between the two companies was transferred to the area of apartment buildings.
However, the current regulatory framework of the EETT remains open to the possibility of a second establishment. At the same time, it is unknown how the landscape will evolve as long as the agreement on the creation of the joint company of PPC and Vodafone in fibre optics in wholesale is approved.
The «M» Address in the Ministry of Digital Governance, which replied that «It is geared towards the formation of a clearer and more coherent framework for vertical cable and fibre optic infrastructure in order to limit fragmentary installations and parallel routes from different providers. Finally, the provision of two optical fibres and double optical sockets per compartment is qualified to facilitate the change of provider or service by a second provider without dismantling or new installation.
