Summary

  • EXA Infrastructure UK Limited has applied for UK Code powers to operate and maintain network assets that it says it intends to take responsibility for across the wider group.
  • Ofcom’s proposal is still pending. Its decision turns on public benefit, the need for Code rights, sharing and the applicant’s ability to meet liabilities, not on network mileage alone.

An installed fibre route has no corporate name printed along its length. Yet the legal person maintaining a duct, renewing a wayleave or arranging street works matters when something must be repaired. Ofcom’s 2026 consultation concerns that gap between physical continuity and legal responsibility. The applicant is EXA Infrastructure UK Limited, company number 04472687. Ofcom received its completed application on 25 August and published a proposal to grant Code powers on 3 September. The consultation closed on 5 October; on 12 October, Ofcom still listed the matter as “Pending Statement (Closed)”. No direction had yet been made.

That status matters because the application describes a transition still to come. EXA told Ofcom that, if powers are granted, the applicant intends to assume responsibility for existing infrastructure and assets held by the wider EXA Group, continue their operation and maintenance, and support possible future deployment in the UK. The proposal is not proof that those assets have already transferred, that all site agreements have been assigned, or that a new build has been committed.

The scale cited in the application explains why the group wants an entity-level arrangement. EXA Group reports 155,000 kilometres of fibre across 37 countries and more than 500 optical points of presence. It says six Atlantic cables connect its routes, three wholly owned and operated, and describes EXA Express as a 4,600-kilometre route. The group sells wavelength and Ethernet capacity, colocation and dark fibre. These are company figures summarized in Ofcom’s document, not an independent inventory of the UK apparatus covered by the proposed direction.

The distinction between group and applicant is visible in the regulator’s own register. Its latest listed entries include EXA Infrastructure Atlantic UK Limited, EXA Infrastructure Express UK Limited and EXA Infrastructure Services UK Limited. The proposal names a different legal person: EXA Infrastructure UK Limited. A company group can coordinate operations, but common branding does not itself tell a landowner, highway authority or customer which company holds a right, must arrange a repair or owes compensation. Nor should powers granted to one affiliate be assumed to cover another.

The direction, if issued, would apply to the person and purposes specified in it.

What the Code changes

The Electronic Communications Code can simplify several kinds of access, but it is not a general title to land. Ofcom says a Code operator may construct and maintain apparatus in public streets without obtaining a separate street works licence for each relevant activity; benefit from certain planning-law immunities; and, when negotiations over private land fail, apply to court for an agreement granting the Code right sought. A court application is a process, not automatic entry or compulsory acquisition. Conditions attached to the Code, street-works legislation and planning rules still govern the work.

EXA’s case focuses on the friction that can arise when the operator responsible for a route lacks the status landlords and authorities expect. It says some existing occupational agreements may be difficult to obtain or renew without Code powers. It also says work in streets would otherwise require individual section 50 licences and that higher costs could make ongoing operation and maintenance impracticable. Those are the applicant’s account of its operating constraints. Ofcom’s preliminary assessment agrees that the proposed network and infrastructure would not be practicable without Code powers, but a final statement remains outstanding.

There is a continuity benefit if a single accountable operator can maintain ducts, chambers and fibre across an inherited network without renegotiating every routine intervention from scratch. EXA also says that other communications providers use its infrastructure to extend their own networks without building duplicate apparatus. Ofcom considers that applying the Code to the applicant would facilitate sharing. That proposition links access rights to a public-interest rationale: shared infrastructure can reduce needless duplication, while wholesale capacity can support services delivered by other providers.

The benefit is not established by the phrase “network sharing” alone. The record should make clear which apparatus the applicant controls, what access it offers to other providers, how charges and repair duties are allocated, and which entity will answer for works. A right that makes maintenance easier can also strengthen bargaining power against a landowner. On streets, easier access can still produce closures, traffic restrictions, noise or visible equipment. Ofcom’s proposal acknowledges those effects and notes that operator obligations continue to apply.

Four questions, one legal person

Section 107(4) of the Communications Act asks Ofcom to consider four matters: benefit to the public; whether the network can practically be provided without the Code; the need to encourage sharing of apparatus; and whether the applicant can meet liabilities arising from Code rights and its conduct. The factors rank alongside Ofcom’s wider statutory duties. The test is not simply whether the group is large or whether fibre is useful. It asks whether this applicant, for this network and system, should receive these rights.

On public benefit, EXA points to enterprise connectivity, other providers’ use of its network, transatlantic backhaul and customer segments including financial services and satellite broadband. It says it plans further UK investment. These claims support a plausible case for continued connectivity, but they should not be mistaken for a quantified consumer outcome or a committed deployment schedule. Ofcom itself notes that future street works could impose short-term disruption.

The liability factor deserves the same scrutiny as operational convenience. EXA supplied information and a director’s confirmation that sufficient funds would be available for specified liabilities, with a certificate to be provided if and when necessary. Ofcom’s proposal says that, on this information, it considers the applicant able to meet those liabilities. That is a preliminary regulatory judgment. The public material does not map every site agreement, asset, maintenance contractor or potential claim to the legal entity that would carry it.

The test after a direction

The closed consultation is a decision point, not the end of the governance question. Ofcom must consider representations before deciding whether to issue the direction. Its proposed timetable says that, outside expropriation cases, a decision is due within six months of the completed application—around 25 February 2027 on the date stated in the proposal, subject to any later update.

If the direction is granted, customers and infrastructure partners should look beyond the headline. Does the final scope match the apparatus and services for which EXA seeks rights? Are the UK applicant’s responsibilities documented for group assets? Do rights, wayleaves, access commitments and maintenance obligations line up? Are there usable records for landowners and highway authorities when work is proposed or damage occurs? Can another provider obtain the sharing access Ofcom has treated as a benefit?

For an operating network, legal continuity can prevent a paper boundary from becoming a service interruption. But continuity is credible only when the same identifiable operator can exercise the rights, maintain the apparatus and answer for the consequences. The decision should therefore be judged not by the kilometres of fibre behind the applicant, but by how precisely the final direction joins control, access and liability.

Sources