Carriers Sharing Ground Rent Rates
A client of mine forwarded to me some documentation that was provided by Cingular and AWS regarding "average ground rent" rates for cell tower leases for a state in the NW. The documentation consisted of a "appraisal" and I use that word loosely and a spreadsheet of 6 different cell tower locations with their ground rents shown.
The information is provided as a means of "encouraging" the landowner to accept the offered tower lease rate that was provided to him that was lower than the average. Yet there is no documentation of the sample of leases that this information was taken from and no indication that it was representative of anything other than that it showed the rents for the towers chosen by the "appraiser" or by AWS as representative.
So why show a landowner that the rate you offered him is lower than the average for the area? Your guess is as good as mine. If you are interested in seeing the report, please feel free to email me for more information.
Hear Us Now- Consumer's Union Website
I came across the Consumer's Union website - the not-for-profit organization that publishes Consumer Reports. Entitled
www.hearusnow.org, the website delves into what is best for the consumer in regards to wireless and other issues related to telecom.
Well worth the read even if you don't agree with some of their suggested courses of action. I particularly agree with their stance on allowing cities and counties to provide wireless high speed internet access over unlicensed spectrum without the major telcos stepping in to "protect" their licensed spectrum rights. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23826-2004Nov30.html for more information on how Verizon has attempted to stop the city of Philadelphia from providing low cost WIFI access to its constituents.
Cell Tower Info
Just a plug- but we have started a new website to complement the information provided on Steel in the Air =
www.celltowerinfo.com We describe the process from start to finish of cell towers- from search ring to leasing space on them.
If you are a vendor in the cell tower or wireless fields who can provide interesting and meaningful content to our website, we welcome your submissions. We reserve absolute discretion over what we choose to place on the site and your submission to us authorizes us to edit your material as we see fit.
We will not accept advertisements for service, although we will be happy to credit you and provide a link to your website for quality information.
Important Cell Tower Siting Case
As you may have seen in Steel in the Air's newsletter this week, the US Supreme Court took up the case of City Rancho Palos Verdes vs. Abrams. Although the plaintiff of the case was a ham radio operator who was erroneously denied a tower, the ruling on this case will extend to cell towers as well. At issue is whether or not federal law authorizes damage suits against cities over the building of cell towers.
The cell tower industry of course supports the authorization of damages. Publicly, the industry hopes that this will assist them in developing the national wireless network they claim that Congress envisioned when it enacted the Telecom Act of 1996. Privately, they hope that it will force cities to abandon rejecting cell towers out of fear of potential damage suits.
Lawyers for the city argued that Congress never intended for the provision of damages and that cities should not be potentially liable for attorney's fees and damages due to one mistake.
In actuality, those of us who work in the industry zoning and permitting towers know that these are not always "one mistake" situations. There are many communities that will deny every application for a cell tower, believing that they are "serving" their citizens by making the industry litigate every cell tower application. Some communities actually budget for the legal fees of these lawsuits. The City Commissioners can then state that they "fought" the evil cell tower companies- it was not their fault they were overturned by the overzealous courts.
Nonetheless, I don't believe that cities should be exposed to damages for improperly denying a cell tower- once. I went against a small town in Missouri during a tower project and basically ended up using my attorney to threaten to invalidate their entire zoning code if they did not approve our tower. In the end, they caved because they could not afford the time to reinstiture their code if we were right. But they were not wrong in denying our cell tower, they were just small and wrong in how they went about it. And I don't believe that should expose them to liability and possibly deplete their meager coffers. The power to litigate the improper denial is strong enough. (Ironically enough, the city's attorney was my high school business education teacher).
However, if it could be proven that the city systematically denies applications, then I do believe they should be liable for damages and attorney's fees.
If you have opinions on this matter- please feel free to share them.
Cell tower heights being reduced?
A recent trend that I find disturbing is municipalities and national parks caving (no pun intended) to public pressure and either requesting or demanding that cell tower lessees reduce the height of an already permitted and approved cell tower. A recent news article run by the Associated Press "Yellowstone officials want cell tower shortened" contains a story of Yellowstone officials who are requesting the Western Wireless reduce the height of an tower built a year or two ago. Apparently, the parks department did not possess the foresight to regulate the type of tower when they originally approved it.
So when a bunch of angry citizen's started organizing the park felt that there was only one way to solve the problem- request a reduction of height. Because of the park's cell tower lease /license agreement, I assume that the request was more of a demand.
Another article that I read recently has a group of citizen's threatening to boycott Nextel because Nextel built a cell tower on a school district parcel, meeting all the requirements of the ordinance. After the tower went up, the citizens who failed to address the site previously, rallied with an uninformed state representative and a mayor to protest the tower by organizing a boycott of Nextel. Apparently, using the legal system was not an issue- BECAUSE NEXTEL DID NOTHING WRONG. So instead of changing the ordinances that allow this type of thing, these two politicians decide that a boycott is there strategic move. Allegedly because they are scared for their children, presumably because they were forced to do something to prove to the angry mob that they were capable of action.
The NIMBY's are becoming NTWIMBYs- Not That Way In My Back Yard.
Rooftop Owners Beware
It has been brought to my attention by a site management associate of mine that a certain and unnamed provider of broadband wireless services (essentially point to point T1 speed transmissions) has been attempting to install wireless equipment on rooftops under the guise that they are allowed there as part of a major wireless carrier's rooftop cell antenna lease agreement. They have called rooftop owners, requesting permission to enter the building and have claimed that they are an affiliate of the carrier. When questioned further, they stated that the underlying lease allows them to place equipment in the lease area of the carrier even though they operate completely different systems and antennas and are basically looking to piggyback without paying the rooftop owner any cell lease rates.
So if you are a rooftop owner who is contacted by someone claiming to be affiliated or otherwise related to a carrier who is leasing your rooftop, reply that they have access to the lease and if they need access to the roof may do so by contacting the carrier.
If you need further assistance, please feel free to contact us here at
www.steelintheair.com.
Antenna Structure Registration Numbers for the last 4 Years
Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I checked on the number of Antenna Structure Registrations over the last four years to see what they showed in terms of site growth. (courtesy of Chuck Pergrim of Percon) As most of my readers will know, the FCC does not require Antenna Structure Registrations for all towers, particularly those that do not require FAA notification. (Typically under 200')
In 2001, when the old TOWAIR tower registrations were changed to Antenna Structure Registrations by the FCC, there were 89,000 listed sites.
In 2002, there were 96,000.
In 2003, there were 101,000.
In mid 2004, there were 104,000.
Currently, there are 109,538 ASRs.
New iDEN Providers Popping Up?
An associate of mine whose company does drive testing has recently informed me of some interesting drive test results that they have been finding. In some areas, smaller independant iDEN providers appear to have popped up. As you may know, Nextel uses iDEN, but is expected to switch to CDMA to match Sprint.
What does this mean? I don't know- if you have any ideas- please feel free to comment.
Consumer Reports annual review of wireless carriers shows Verizon best of "bad bunch"
The news is out- Verizon is listed as the top carrier by Consumer Reports. I am sure that we will see a number of press releases from various carriers who were not number one claiming that the testing was flawed or exhorting virtues that Consumer Reports did not mention. (Like Sprint's Used To Be the Largest All Digital Network)
Consumer Reports did not like the mergers of Cingular/AT&T or Nextel/Sprint as they decrease competition and up the potential for confusion when customers are forced to switch new plans.
What is suprising is that T-Mobile is ranked second across the nation. My personal experience with T-Mobile has been that outside of major cities it's coverage was poor.
What is not suprising is that in light of those factors reviewed: area service coverage, dropped calls, static and busy circuits, that the carriers were only rated mediocre. As I have not read the whole Consumer Reports article, I don't know if they mention any of the reasons why these failures occur. Anyone who has performed site acquisition or led a zoning hearing knows that the preferred technical location for a tower is often not the actual location where it ends up. And the everpresent NIMBY's who certainly answered the survey in a negative fashion that Consumer Reports used to create its findings are the same people that bemoan any tower.
Cingular to "Cherry Pick" AT&T Cell Tower Sites
In a series of new press releases from Cingular regarding cell tower development in the SouthEast, there is a common statment included. "Cingular is not only planning to build additional sites across (pick state) to further enhance the local networks, but also to "cherry pick" sites from the existing AT&T Wireless network that will quickly add coverage to areas of need."
Does this mean that Cingular will choose the AT&T sites which complement its network best while continuing to operate a less efficient AT&T network? How does this impact AT&T's legacy TDMA customers?
Statements by AT&T reps to clients of mine that they were renegotiating with indicated that Cingular would be reviewing all sites (including Cingular's) and then prioritizing them based on lease rate and term remaining. It is assumed that they will prioritize those sites that provide the best coverage. But the statement issued by Cingular seems to indicate that there will not be any turnoff of Cingular sites- which does not jive with popular opinion or previous statements.
Cingular is busy with cell tower leases
My consulting company, Steel in the Air, provides lease negotiation assistance for landowners who have been approached by a wireless company like Cingular, Nextel, T-Mobile, or Verizon to assist then in negotiating their cell tower ground lease.
Last year was an interesting one- the early part of the year it seemed as though TMobile was the most active carrier as determined by the number of clients who were dealing with Tmobile. Towards the middle of the year when TMobile announced that they were halting development due to the loss of the Cingular spectrum sharing agreement in NY and CA, Verizon seemed to pick up the pace.
Then in the end of the year and the beginning of this year, over 60% of the landowners who contact us are dealing with Cingular. There is still some activity on Nextel and Verizon's behalf, but Sprint and TMobile seem to be inactive. Some of my clients who were dealing with TMobile earlier this year have contacted me and informed me that TMobile has informed them that they are ready to pick up where they left off.
Remember this is purely anecdotal evidence- and is based solely on the clients who contact me.
(Post note: after writing this, I spoke with a stock analyst who informed me that the equipment vendors did not meet their projected Q3 and Q4 2004 numbers, in part due to significant declines in equipment orders from Cingular and AT&T. So my anecdotal evidence may not be representative.)
Cell Tower Info - First Post
Welcome to the first post on the Steel in the Air - Cell Tower Info blog.
First off, let me start by telling you that if you are looking for news clippings about cell towers, Steel in the Air provides a newsletter that focuses on happenings within the cell tower industry that impact both developers and landowners. The newsletter comes out every Friday and can be subscribed to by emailing me at newsletter@steelintheair.com.
This blog is strictly intended for commentary on some of the news clippings- which we make no representation that it will be unbiased. This is our forum for unsubstantiated rumors and sometimes uneducated theory. Take it for what you payed for it.
Sincerely,
Ken Schmidt
President
www.steelintheair.com
