This blog is now located at __FTP_MIGRATION_NEW_URL__.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click
here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
__FTP_MIGRATION_FEED_URL__.
Questionable Negotiating Tactics of Cell Tower Contracts
A client of ours recently commented to me that he agreed to terms that were lower than we recommended because he was tired of negotiating with the tower company. They had contacted him to extend his lease and even though there were 15 years remaining were pestering him on a weekly basis. Think about this- this particular tower company (a public tower company) agent felt that it was appropriate to contact a landowner about extending his lease weekly even though there were over 180 weeks remaining before the lease was set to expire. They were so desperate to
extend their lease that they needed to call over and over far in advance. These high pressure sales techniques were set up specifically to have this effect.
Before you get the wrong impression that I am trying to single out a particular tower company or lease optimization firm- I want to point out that this tower company isn't alone. The lease optimization firms use similar tactics regularly. The
lease buyout companies also rely upon constant calls as a tool to wear down the landowner and make them agree to terms that they wouldn't absent the constant pressure. The constant suggestion is that if you don't do something now- our offer will decrease. Fact: With rare exception, the offers almost never decrease.
Who is the worst- the lease buyout firms for sure. Some of the
lease optimization firms call you over and over- not leaving a message but waiting until you pick up. And if you don't pick up, they use another number that you might not recognize until they get you. One lease optimization firm told a client's secretary that if she didn't get her boss on the phone, that he would sue her personally. (I called the wireless carrier who retained this firm to let them know of this pathetic tactic. They promised to resolve it so that would never occur again.)
When did their business objectives become more important than common decency? The simple answer is never. If you are getting pestered and don't feel that you have the answers to make an informed decision, please contact us. There are very few situations where you have to make an immediate decision and we will certainly let you know if yours is one of them. Otherwise, take your time, do your research. We will be here when you feel that you need help.
Municipal Lease Negotiations- When Cities Undervalue Their Assets
There are times when I come across a news story and am saddened when I read about a municipal landowner who has negotiated an undervalued lease. This particular story is about a Village in the Chicago, IL area who negotiated their own agreements with Verizon, US Cellular, Clearwire, and T-Mobile for use of a water tower on school district property. The lease rate negotiated was less than the average of what the typical tower company charges for a collocation lease.
This particular site water tower is located in an urban area. Without knowing anything else about the area, it is easily clear that just by the fact that there were four users interested in going on the site, that this is a unique site and should have commanded significantly higher rents.
I assume that the decision maker's had the best of intentions. I assume they contacted other municipalities nearby to find out what other villages were being paid. However, they were incorrect in assuming that their location was average and that the comparable lease rates should apply. As a result, they did their constituents a disservice. As a result, this particular Village will lose out on a minimum of $500,000 in future value over the course of the leases. All because they failed to understand the unique value of their property and relied upon average lease rates.
Labels: cell sites, city, municipality, water tower
Vandals Collapse Tower with Excavator
Some vandals claiming to be from an eco-terrorism group caused the collapse of two towers using construction equipment.
The pictures are pretty fascinating.
A story about the FBI getting involved can be found
here.
Labels: tower collapse
Wireless Costs Around the Globe
Billshrink did a study of their data and found that US subscribers pay more on
average for monthly wireless use than subscribers in the other countries they evaluated. The average revenue per user in the US is $53/mo per Billshrink's data. Compare this to Sweden and Finland where the ARPU is $11/mo. The next costliest country for wireless service was Spain at $42/mo. Not ironically, most of the cheaper countries have better services and more advanced handsets. They also tend to be smaller in land mass which may contribute to cost efficiency. One benefit may be that the carriers can afford to pay more for cell site leases.
Labels: ARPU, wireless costs
Which Stealth Cell Tower is more Stealthy?
Reading an
article in the Press Democrat for Santa Rosa, CA where they show two separate stealth cell towers. The article is not particularly innovative- just commentary on the battle between aesthetics and wireless expansion. However, the reason that I found it interesting is that they contrast two stealth towers. (Photos from Press Democrat)
The first is a water tower at a farm:
The second is a stealth pine tree in the middle of an orchard:
Clearly, one of these accomplishes the objective of being fairly stealthy- in that it is not readily apparent without a second look where the cell tower is. The water tower is well done- fits the environment. The pine tree on the other hand is ridiculous.
The question that remains is whether the second tower is really that much better than a typical monopole in terms of visibility? This is similar to a 100' pine tree tower near downtown Tampa that rises out of a commercial area. It is completely out of place. Seems to me that stealth towers should actually be stealthy in the area that they are located. This burden falls on the local land use planners to actually understand what they are approving.
Labels: camouflaged towers, stealth cell towers
Crossroads Wireless- Bankruptcy!
Many people contacted Steel in the Air, Inc about the possibility of getting assistance with negotiating land leases with Crossroads Wireless. After one or two consultations, we chose not to take on any of these clients because our experience in dealing with Crossroads agents proved that they would not make changes to their lease. At the $300/mo to $400/mo that Crossroads was offering, we suggested to potential clients that they should really consider the liability that they were incurring by working with Crossroads. Furthermore, we suggested people did not need to retain us unless their property was special or unique because they were not likely to get anything more on their lease.
None of our clients chose to go forwards with Crossroads. In hindsight, that may have been a wise decision. In February of 2009, a group of Crossroads creditors chose to file for involuntary bankruptcy for Crossroads. The Bankruptcy Court granted an order to convert the bankruptcy to a Chapter 11
reorganisation.
As it pertains to land leases, Crossroads was successful in signing up 2000 or so landowners. They now want to get out 197 of those leases. Whether these leases are ones where they actually started construction is unknown. Perhaps the leases that they want to retain are ones where they haven't started construction or they have finished construction.
For more on this situation, please read an
excellent article on the subject at Wireless Estimator.
Labels: Crossroads Wireless
T-Mobile Cell Tower Construction On Hold.
This afternoon, one of our clients who had negotiated an agreement with T-Mobile for lease of their land received the following response from T-Mobile as to why their lease was not signed:
"As I mentioned during our conversation, due to the Economic Situation, T-Mobile is not moving forward at this time, with any leases, since no towers are going to be built. We would like to keep this site as a possibility for future reference, since it is a future interest for T-Mobile."
Our client was understandably angry because this particular lease reimbursed him for legal fees that he had already expended. So T-Mobile's failure to sign the lease meant that he wasn't going to be reimbursed even though he had done everything they had asked of him and had signed the lease.
It appears from this message that T-Mobile tower construction nationwide is on hold. We have heard a rumor that capital expenditures from T-Mobile in some markets have
been dropped 90%. We suspect that they are still continuing with construction on some towers but that a budget hold has been placed in effect and a good number of towers are not being constructed at this time. In our experience, these setbacks are typically an indicator of one of the following:
1. Poor financial performance: T-Mobile has not been having a banner year.
2. Possible merger: Carriers typically stop construction prior to announcing a merger.
3. Need to reallocate budget for 3G.
I believe this is probably indicative of the 1st scenario. If you are in a similar situation, there isn't much you can do other than wait. Whatever you do, there is no cause to get angry towards T-Mobile.
Labels: T-Mobile, tower construction
Top 10 Pieces of Advice for Landowners
1. Do know that their first offer is almost never their final offer.
2. Don't ever assume that your neighbors/friends/family knew what they were doing when they negotiated their own leases.
3. Don't ever sign a lease that doesn't include the full construction drawings as an exhibit.
4. Don't assume that every lease must have sublease revenue sharing.
5. Don't believe everything you read on the web. The average for cell site leases is NOT $1500/mo.
6. Do have your attorney review your tower lease.
7. Don't trust a verbal promise by the wirelss carriers or the tower companies.
8. Do be prompt in negotiating and responding to inquiries for a cell tower lease.
9. Do consider that the tower may alienate neighbors and nearby residents before agreeing to a lease.
10. Do your own homework on whether towers are safe or not.
Labels: cell phone tower lease
Impact of CPI Based Escalation
One of the recent questions we have been getting quite frequently is whether it makes sense to modify an existing lease to a Consumer Price Index (CPI) based escalation rate. This is because a few of the tower companies, including Crown Castle are actively looking to change their existing leases to a CPI based escalation due to changes in how they are required to report expenses over time related to a lease.
To help make sense of this issue, it is important to start with what CPI has done over the last 10 years. Please see the chart below. This is based upon the Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (yes- there are multiple versions of CPI that can impact your actual escalation from year to year positively or negatively).
You will see that over the last 10 or so years, CPI escalation has ranged from a high of 4.08% to a low of 0.09% with an average of 2.38%. It is not difficult to see then that if you have a fixed based escalation in your lease that is greater than 2.38%, it might be detrimental to agree to a CPI based escalation. Clearly, CPI fluctuates and could go higher or lower. But based upon the last 12 years, many landowners will not be better off going to a CPI based esclation rate as compared to a fixed escalation rate.
To further complicate matters, the tower companies are placing ceilings on the escalation rates so that even if CPI is greater than a certain percentage rate, that you will only receive that rate. This is ridiculous. If you are willing to risk your escalation on what happens with CPI- you should receive the reward as well if the CPI is higher than average.
In short, we see little reason why a landowner would agree to amend their lease to reflect a CPI based escalation unless they are confident that CPI will be higher over time than their current lease escalation. Even then, the landowner should understand what they are giving up in the amended lease before agreeing. This could include the right to share in revenue from the tower, the right to an increased base lease rate, and/or the right to landowner friendly terms.
If you are contacted to modify your lease, please don't hesitate to contact Steel in the Air, Inc. for more help.
Labels: cell phone tower lease, CPI, crown castle, escalation
School Cell Towers: Why RFP's Don't Work
Steel in the Air, Inc. regularly assists schools with cell tower leases on school district property. We represent schools and universities who see the upside of income that doesn't require a budget meeting or tax increases to procure. With the downturn in property tax valuations and increasing budgetary restraints, more and more schools are evaluating school cell towers as a source of income.
Recently, we went and spoke to a particular school board in south Florida as a member of the public in response to their consideration of the possibility of leasing school district property to cellular providers. Our particular objection to their proposed plan was that they intended to simply issue an Request for Proposals "RFP" in hopes that multiple parties would bid on the exclusive right to place towers on school district property. We objected to this option because we felt that it limits the value that the District procures from cell tower leases on school property. The District was looking to minimize the impact on its day to day operations by going with a single source vendor who would build, own, and operate the towers. They would evaluate District property and assist the District in marketing the property to wireless carriers. If they found interest, they would develop and pay for the cell tower on school land and manage it. In return, they split the revenue with the school district 50/50.
On the surface, this may seem like a good option. There are surely benefits to this type of plan.
- The District and the tower company's goals are typically aligned in that the tower company needs tenants if it intends to be profitable.
- The District gets to offload the negotiation of lease agreements to a third party vendor thereby decreasing staff time on the projects. (As anyone who regular negotiates leases on school district property knows- these are time consuming leases).
- The District gets a sizable amount of income- especially in more urban areas or in areas where
However, there are some potential issues with this type of plan for school cell towers.
- 50% of the revenue can be substantially less than the District would have received had it just negotiated the lease directly with the wireless carrier.
- In some cases, it is unlikely that more than one wireless carrier will use a particular location. As the tower company only gets 50% that may not be enough to justify building the tower. As such, the District forgoes whatever revenue it could have negotiated directly for the lease.
- The District can give up some of its control over the placement of towers on its own property.
- Some districts have experienced significant public opposition to cell towers on school property on the basis of the sometimes irrational concerns about radio frequency radiation.
- Despite some common goals, the tower company and the District will inevitably have different goals because the tower company exists solely to make money off the operation of the towers.
The biggest issue we had with this particular District is that they assumed that an RFP would effectively bring in bidders. However, what they don't know is that the way they intend to craft the RFP will limit the number of bidders. The large tower companies don't do 50% revenue sharing. There are some tower companies that would be interested in building cell towers at schools, but they aren't likely to see the RFP. The wireless carriers won't bid because they would simply prefer to let a tower company deal with the burden and cost. The District is unlikely to know how to find small tower companies who aren't likely to read or follow school district RFPs. So the District constituents get the short end of the stick because the RFP ends up being bid on by one or two companies. To make matters worse, these bidders almost always know that RFP's for school sites will only be bid on by one or two companies and therefore aren't forced to bid competitively.
Our suggestion is that school districts retain outside experts to assist them in determining the most profitable way of leasing space for school cell towers. We can review the District's goals and help guide you on the method that will maximize your revenue while minimizing the headache to the district. It might be that one vendor is suitable or perhaps multiple vendors. Alternatively, perhaps the District could consider building and owning the towers themselves. Please contact us if you are school district looking to increase its revenue while minimizing the administrative burden from dealing with the wireless providers. We can provide non-biased advice on how best to accomplish BOTH of these goals. Please also see our webpage on municipalities building their own towers.
Labels: cell towers, municipality, school cell tower
Stealth tower????
Worst stealth tower I have seen. Looks nothing like a tree- well perhaps the Charlie Brown Christmas Tree. This particular company was cheap and it shows.
How Boost Unlimited will Help Sprint but Hurt the Wireless Industry
While it may be hard to tell, Sprint PCS (S) is finally turning the corner. Dan Hesse, CEO of Sprint, is leading Sprint back from their apparent doom. Boost Unlimited is the latest in a series of efforts by Sprint to rectify their sinking stock prices. And from our viewpoint- it is a step in the right direction.
Let's start with the basics: $50/mo for unlimited Voice, Push to Talk, and Text. All prepaid- and INCLUDING TAXES. The obvious comparison is either to MetroPCS' or to Leap Wireless' unlimited plans. MetroPCS' comparable plan is $45/mo and Leaps is $40/mo- both of which do not include taxes- which add another 10%. But the biggest difference is that with Boost Unlimited, the user gets the benefit of a nationwide network as compared to either Leap or Metro's limited buildout in primarily urban areas.
METROPCS NATIONAL COVERAGE
LEAP WIRELESS CITIES- courtesy of http://www.mycricket.com/
As you can see, if you travel a lot- especially to rural areas, you would have to pay roaming on either MetroPCS ($.49 to $.79/minute) or Leap Wireless' plan. (comes with either 30 or 200 minutes free- charges above that). On Boost Unlimited, whereever Nextel's iDEN network is- your phone works. Given Nextel's substantial coverage over the US, your phone will work in far more places and at a reasonable costs. And having experienced poor network quality on MetroPCS' underbuilt network here in Fort Myers first hand, I like other consumers would prefer better quality even if I am only paying $45/mo.
So who stands to lose from this plan? Phil Cusick, an analyst at Macquarie Research believes that Boost Mobile could add 1.9 million subscribers to the Sprint network in 2009, and another 1 million in 2010. Should the economy continue to falter, this may be conservative. Mr. Cusick identifies that MetroPCS and Leap could stand to lose the most especially in their legacy (older) markets. One of the pitfalls with pre-paid cellular service is that it has no contract and thus experiences higher churn.
Why does this work so well for Sprint? Besides the obvious need to reduce churn and actually have positive subscriber addition numbers, Sprint also needs to find a use for the iDEN network. As it previously promised to support the iDEN users through 2012 and tried but failed to sell the iDEN network, Sprint now gets to find some value out of its iDEN network. And given the number of subscribers that have left the Nextel network due in no small part to capacity issues on this antiquated network, there is plenty of capacity to be used by the new subscribers. Furthermore, because the users who would be interested in Boost Unlimited aren't looking for data services, there will be nominal capital expenditures necessary to maintain the quality of the iDEN network. Lastly, this will free up capacity on the Sprint's CDMA network.
What are the pitfalls? There are a few. Given the ARPU (average revenue per user) is lower than what Sprint currently receives ($56/mo for post paid without taxes), some Sprint users could switch to Boost Unlimited and use more network capacity for less than they currently pay. For instance, my wife's company currently has 5 lines through Sprint, 3 of which will definately be switched to Boost Unlimited. Mr. Cusick does not expect that there will be significant cannabalization. Secondly, while there won't be much in the way of capital expenditures required, there will undoubtedly be some required as Sprint/Nextel have built very few new sites since their merger in 2005. Coverage needs and demographics have certainly changed. Lastly, if MetroPCS and Leap counter with a reduction in rates, this could set off a rate war, which would undoubtedly cause AT&T and Verizon to retaliate as well. While this would be good for consumers, it would decrease carrier profits eventually leading to more mergers and less consumer choice. (Mr. Cusick believes that Metro/Leap will be more inclined to merge given the additional competition from Boost Unlimited).
All in all, we see Boost Unlimited as both a positive for subscribers and for Sprint (and its stockholders- which in full disclosure- I am one of them). The negative aspect for the entire industry is that Sprint's price wars hurt the collective ARPU for all vendors and this new offering will only increase the impact.
(A special cite to Phil Cusick at Macquarie Research- his research was key to much of the thinking here).
Labels: Boost Unlimited, Leap Wireless, MetroPCS
Cox Communications to Enter the Wireless Market
In one of the first signs of good news that I have seen recently surrounding our market (other than self serving statements from public tower company executives at the
PCIA conference), Cox Communications recently announced that it will build its own
Cox Communications cellular network. Cox Communications spent $550 million to purchase spectrum in Atlanta, New Orleans, San Diego, Omaha, and
Las Vegas along with a good part of Kansas and southern New Mexico.
Cox intends to build out those markets and connect to Cox fiber in those areas for
backhaul. In other areas, Cox consumers will roam on the Sprint/
Nextel network. (Cox must have decided that network quality wasn't important for roaming).
While the full impact of Cox's development plan is yet to be known, at a bare minimum, this should equate to at least 2000 new cell sites over the next few years. If recent deployments by
MetroPCS and Leap are any indications, the majority of these sites will be on rooftops and existing towers. One interesting note- in an article in the
USA Today- Cox alleges that they are looking towards
LTE as their future 4G technology platform. However, with Sprint/Nextel using WiMAX, I have to wonder how Cox intends for its users to roam on the Sprint/Nextel network and still have their phones function for advanced services unless Cox intends to use Sprint/Nextel's network in the beginning entirely.
Labels: cox communications
How will cell tower leases be impacted by the current market conditions?
The last month has been a
tumultuous time in the cell tower lease industry, primarily on the side of lease buyouts. With the plummet of the stock market, rising concerns about the availability of credit, and consumer confidence very low, the industry is starting to see the impact. Through our consultations, we have already started to see tangible evidence of a declining market especially in the lease buyout side.
From our vantage, there is a distinct shrinking of the lease buyout market. Of the numerous players who purchase long term easements under cell towers and rooftop sites in exchange for a lump sum, there has
definitely been a slide in the purchase prices and an increase in the due diligence requirements for purchases. Companies that buy the leases are looking to pay less and to be more selective in their choice of leases - preferring to purchase only "investment grade" leases. (i.e. those that are from AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon). While they still purchase non-investment grade leases, the multiples paid for all leases has
definitely gone down.
One primary reason for this is that Wireless Capital Partners shut its doors about a month ago. With one major competitor out of the way, the remaining firms recognized the advantage they now have and have started to lower their prices and increase their due diligence requirements. Prices are lower than they were just two months ago. There are rumors that a new entity may be formed to fill
WCP's shoes, but
SITA has not seen any evidence of such yet.
Even the tower companies have started to pull back from previous offers. Crown Castle's agents have been representing to landowners that today (Oct 16, 2008) is the last day that they will be honoring most if not all of the lump sum buyouts they previously made. Unlike virtually every other time that lease buyout firms give "hard deadlines",
SITA believes that this one is for real. Crown's stock price has plummeted from a 52 week high of $43 to their current price of $19. One specific reason for this is that Crown may have to
pay back a $160MM credit facility. SITA does not believe that Crown or their landowners are in any jeaopardy- but this does put Crown in a situation where they need to retain their capital for more immediate needs than purchasing long term easements under their leases. Crown's representatives have stated that they will still continue to push the extensions of the leases but won't be making lease buyout offers until they can resolve their credit facility issues. This could take quite a while.
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE ME AS A LANDOWNER?
Recognize that the value of your tower or rooftop lease is still the same. Nothing has changed that would reduce the value to the owner of the tower. What has changed is availability of capital to those companies that purchase tower and rooftop leases. Unfortunately for many landowners, the recent turmoil comes during a time when many landowners are going to need capital to keep their houses or run their businesses. So as the average landowner's need for the capital increases, the number of competing companies that want to buy the lease decreases and the rates that the remaining companies are willing to pay decreases as well. We are getting an increased number of inquiries from landowners who need to sell their tower lease(s).
Our advice: if you don't need to sell at this time- DON'T. We started in this industry in 1997, weathered the downturn in 2001-2002 and have seen the cycles. As with previous downturns, this too shall pass. The vacumn filled by WCP and by the reduction of offers from towers companies will either be filled again by the tower companies or opportunistic companies that see value in the lease buyout market.
If you do need to sell, recognize that you don't have the same negotiating position that you had just one month ago. However, don't believe that you have to accept the offer that you are given. Even now, we rarely see situations where the first offer is the best. At SITA, we can assist you in making sure that you get the best offer available. We know the players and we have assembled substantial comparable data to assist us in recognizing trends in pricing- both short term and long term. Please see our
cell tower lease buyout page for more information.
If you don't know whether you should sell, please
contact us. We can help you determine whether there is any probility that your lease might be terminated. We can also help guide you on what the pros/cons of selling now are and discuss what the future holds for this industry and lease buyout firms.
Labels: cell phone tower lease, cell tower ground lease, crown castle, lease buyouts, wireless capital partners
Cincinnati Bell Wireless and Lazy Site Acquisition
A potential client received a letter from Cincinnati Bell Wireless stating that they have reviewed the client's property and were potentially interested in leasing a portion of the property for their cell tower site. The letter includes a template lease from Cincinnati Bell Wireless and a request for the landowner to review the lease with his/her attorney first to confirm which clauses that the landowner might find objectionable. While this is understandable, Cincinnati Bell also states in the letter that legal review is a prerequisite to negotiating terms like rent or escalation. Meaning that the landowner either has two choices. First, they can assume that the lease rate will be favorable, call their attorney to review the lease and pay $1500 or more in attorney's fees before ever actually knowing whether Cincinnati Bell intends to pay them $100/mo or $1000/mo. Second, the average landowner might decide not to review the lease in order to save the money and indicate to Cincinnati Bell that they are interested. In this case, they might give up the right to thoroughly review the contract.
We object to this specific type of site acquisition as predatory. Cincinnati Bell Wireless is forcing the landowner to either spend money on an attorney before even negotiating the lease terms or putting them in a situation where more ignorant landowners will simply choose not to get legal representation at all. To us this is lazy and predatory.
Why not simply state in the letter what Cincinnati Bell Wireless is prepared to offer? Then the landowner can make an informed decision of whether the money spent on an attorney will be well spent.
From a landowner perspective, what is to prevent the landowner from simply lying about whether they have objections to the agreement so that they can get to the discussion of the rent and other financial terms? I can't think of anything.
Labels: cell tower ground lease, cincinnati bell wireless, site acquisition
Wireless Capital Shutting Their Doors?
One of
WCP's agents told us yesterday that
WCP is closing its doors and will not be funding any of the deals for which it has signed letters of intent. He mentioned that he was told this on a conference call where he was let go earlier this week.
WCP blamed the issue on the financial markets.
Allegedly,
WCP will release individuals who have signed letters of intent from their deal if the landowner calls
WCP and requests to be released.
If you have entered into a deal with
WCP and would like to check out other options, please contact us.
Irresponsible School Boards and Churches
At Steel in the Air, Inc, we have assisted a number of municipalities with cell phone tower lease proposals at schools. We have also provided guidance to a number of schools, both public and private across the United States.
To our surprise, in some circumstances there has been little to no public opposition to the proposal to place a tower at a school or a church. The surprise comes from the fact that rarely are tower proposals at schools and churches unopposed by local residents. These residents rally to the cry that "towers will cause unknown health problems in our children" regardless of whether they have studied the issue or not. This post is not to suggest that these parents are rationally protective or hysterically uninformed, but to suggest that schools and churches should know in advance that parents will in all likelihood object to the proposed cell phone tower at the church or school. And that such opponents can become very vociferous and actionable.
In a recent newspaper article, "
Cell tower plan on tap for Middletown zoners" in the
Ashbury Park Press, a local School Board requested that it's attorney send a letter to Verizon AFTER they had already signed a lease to allow a cell tower on school board property. "This letter is written at the unanimous direction of the Board of Education, to advise you that due to overwhelming pressure and expressed concerns from the citizens of
Middletown, the Board is hereby requesting the cancellation of parties' Agreement prior to the completion of Verizon's application process and the Commencement Date of the Agreement." There are numerous other situations that we are aware of where the same thing
occurred. Some of Steel in the Air's own clients have contacted us after they signed a lease to inquire whether they can terminate it because of significant public opposition. We now tell all of our school/church clients that they need to assess whether they can accept opposition from neighbors before they sign.
My issue with the position of the school is not that they would object to the placement of a tower on school property. It is clearly their right and obligation to protect the children at the school. While I believe that towers are fundamentally safe with rare exception, I don't question the board's right to make a decision that the income may not be worth it.
However, I object specifically to the ignorance of this school board in not considering the issue prior to voting to accept the lease. They clearly like the dollar signs but failed to consider the possible adverse reaction. All they would have had to do is read the paper or search the Internet for hundreds of stories whereby there was opposition to a cell tower on the basis of health. And in failing to do so, the board was irresponsible.
Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and subsequent case law prevents local zoning officers and boards from denying a tower proposal on the basis of health- the residents turned their anger to the school district. The School Board caved to the pressure of the residents and chose to not honor their word/contract with Verizon. In essence, their negligence may cost Verizon a minimum of $30,000 in site acquisition costs, architectural and engineering services, environmental review, tower manufacturer fees, and the like. In the end, this all could have been avoided had the School Board acted responsibly rather than on public pressure. A contract is a contract. I assume that Verizon could bring an action for breach of lease and for damages- but suit against a school district may not be an publicly acceptable course of action.
In the future, perhaps other school boards or churches might actually consider the potential ramifications from approving a cell tower on school district property before they simply negotiate fiscal terms and sign a lease. It would save both the wireless carrier and the school board a significant amount of aggravation.
Labels: cell phone tower lease, church cell tower, school cell tower, verizon
Apple iPhone- Impact on Cellular Networks
A little over 1 month ago, I purchased the iPhone 3G. This post is an admission that until I did so, I really didn't understand how this particular device has and will continue to change the very industry I work in.
Simply put- the device is amazing and is truly unlike any other device I have used. I count myself among the technical adapters and have used many so called "smart" phones over the last few years. None of these devices no matter how advanced they were remotely changed my data
ARPU- but I can assure you the iPhone has. I have an unlimited plan and use it constantly.
I access full page regular websites regularly. (It is so convenient to be able to access a website while out of the house to look up a fact or reference item)
I check my stock portfolio a few times a week. (More than I do on my computers).
I am
addicted to
Facebook's "twitter" like "what are you doing" application. (the utility comes from having friends on
Facebook- not the other way around)
I use Google Maps much more often when I travel because it is faster and easier to access.
I check feeds to a number of blogs- which I now do more often because I can check them while I have even a few minutes of downtime.
The only thing that I don't do more often than I did before was check my email. Why - because of the crappy keyboard and Apple's stupid auto correction for typing. I like that it pushes email- but hate responding to email on the device. (Apple- why not allow
bluetooth keyboards?)
The long and short of it is- that until you have actually used the iPhone daily- you more than likely don't understand how device makers (not the carriers) will change our industry and increase
ARPU. The iPhone is that groundbreaking. And until Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile get equally accessible and functional devices, they won't see the same uptick as AT&T does in data
usage and return.
Labels: AT and T, iPhone
Worst stealth tower I have seen. Looks nothing like a tree- well perhaps the Charlie Brown Christmas Tree. This particular company was cheap and it shows.
