Categories

Page 1 of 4212345...102030...Last »

New Mobilitie Design: The ‘Fanny Pack’

Mobilitie, the purveyor for Sprint of such new but instant classic wireless designs as:

The “Speargun” Design * (see below)

and

The “Pox on a Pole” Design (this is the Walrus version) *

and

The “Stick it Up Your Pole” Design * # (see below)

…has (finally) come up with a fairly-decent site configuration.  I call the new design the “Fanny Pack.”  Here’s what it looks like, as recently deployed in the City of Los Angeles:

The “Fanny Pack” Design *

The RRU, UE (backhaul) Relay, the power distribution, and elements other than the downlink antenna are all located within the Fanny Pack.

I see the Fanny Pack design as Mobilitie’s best efforts to date to come with and deploy a closer-to-mainline wireless site that is far less awful that its prior outdoors site configurations.  There are some site deployment issues with the Fanny Pack design, but those issues are relatively easy to address.

We’ve seen plans for the same basic Fanny Pack design, but with the equipment enclosure on the back of the pole.  Needless to say, we’ll refer to that as the “Back Pack” when deployed.  Photos to follow after the first Back Pack goes up near us.

Keep up this better work, Mobilitie!

Jonathan

* Okay, as you should have guessed by now, these are my design names, not Mobilitie’s. Got it? Good!

# Ms. Shannon Nichols, a NCE Permitting Manager for Mobilitie in Southern California told me on 12/6/2017 that the wood pole configuration shown above, with its standoff bracket and equipment, was a design requirement of the City of Los Angeles.  She went on to say that Mobilitie would have preferred to have its equipment flush to the body of the pole.  Thanks for the clarification, Shannon.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Most Favored Wireless Lessee Clause?

One of the big wireless carriers has added an interesting new ‘standard provision’ in its lease template.  It’s a clause that makes that particular lessee the ‘most favored lessee’ over the decades-long life of the agreement.

Some of you will recognize this type of contract provision as a Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) clause.

In the wireless leasing context, a wireless landlord granting this MFN might be called a “Most Flagrant Numskull.”

I’ll review the meat of the MFN clause. Then I’ll you how we’re handling this odious little clause for our wireless landlord clients.

Paraphrased, major elements of the MFN cause require the Lessor to guarantee to its wireless carrier tenant that if the Lessor does any subsequent lease deal…not just for wireless…with another entity at the same property — or even at an entirely different property anywhere in the world — then the wireless tenant gets to decide whether they want those same better deal points

The elements of the MFN include rent, contract benefits, as well as the terms and conditions for any deal the lessor does for identical or even similar land deals.  Essentially, every deal point comes into play. The MFN also requires that the landlord timely disclose every one of  those lease deals to the carrier, but the carrier reserves the right to reject any or all of the other terms if it doesn’t like them.

Oh, yes, through the MFN, the carrier reserves the right to independently dig into every deal the landlord does. Arguably, this means that any type of similar deal the landlord does anywhere else in the world has to given to the wireless tenant to pick and choose to see if they want also, some, or none of the terms retroactively.

Also, there’s no limit to the number of times or deals that the MFN can be used to favorably tweak its wireless lease.

What’s a landlord to do?

Well, there are two obvious answers to the MFN issue.

The answer I particularly like is to AGREE to the MFN clause and…

wait for it… wait for it…

…the landlord requires that the carrier mirror the MFN clause so that the wireless carrier has to give the very same bundle of rights to landlord. Yeah, like that’s going to fly with the carrier.

Okay, you can probably guess the better second answer: We recommend our clients strike the clause and tell the carrier to keep their hands inside their own ride at all times.

Do I chide the wireless companies for overreaching clauses like this?  Of course not.

The legal duty owned by management to its wireless company shareholders is to enrich the shareholders regardless of the legal and financial devastation they might do to the unknowing landlord.  There are no morals involved here. It’s simply the way of business.

It’s also why we enjoy working with wireless site landlords to point out the obvious and not-so-obvious legal landmines buried in wireless site leases.

Jonathan

(Base photo: By Reedhawk – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=36811331)

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Sprint Uses My Photo of Mobilitie to Promote Small Cells

I guess Sprint really, really likes my cell site photo collection, and photos I use in my lectures.  So much, in fact, that they they included one of my annotated photos of a Mobilitie ‘pox-on-a-pole’ site in Los Angeles as a presentation tool in an Ex Parte meeting with 9 staff members at the FCC on October 23, 2017.  Here’s my annotated photo, used by Sprint in its Ex Parte presentation:


Did Sprint bother to ask me for permission to use my intellectual property in its Ex Parte presentation?

Of course not.

Does my annotated photograph above, used by Sprint without my permission, look like the type of cell you’d want in front of your residential balcony?

I suspect not.

Hey, Sprint (and specifically Keith Buell), the next time you’d like to use my intellectual property, please consider giving me a call first.

Here’s a link to Sprint’s Ex Parte 4-page filing containing MY photo: CLICK HERE.

jlk

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

SB 649 VETOED BY GOV. BROWN!

Very late last night (October 15, 2017), Governor Jerry Brown VETOED Senate Bill 649 (Hueso).  Thank you Gov. Brown!

SB 649 was nothing more than an obscene transfer of wealth away from California citizens to wireless industry and cable TV industry shareholders by way of grossly reduced site rental fees, far below their fair market value.  A diversion of funds that currently goes to offset public safety costs like police and fire services.

The pig is dead!

What did the industry promise in SB 649 to do for the incredible gifts of public funds and public property?

Perhaps a duty to provide 5G services anywhere in California?  Nope, not in SB 649.

Perhaps a duty to provide 4G (or even 3G) services to under- and un-served areas of California? Nope, not in SB 649.

Maybe some duty to provide an earthquake early warning system, which the carriers told legislators could only be provided by 5G?  Nope, not in SB 649.

Maybe some duty to close the ever-widening digital divide in California?  Nope, not in SB 649.

Maybe a duty to provide a non-actionable report to the Legislature?  Yup.  This was the only actual duty on the industry in SB 649.  One that was truly meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

SB 649 was a multi-billion dollar sham almost perpetrated on Californians by Sen. Hueso and Asm. Quirk, the co-sponsors, on behalf of their patrons, the wireless industry and the cable TV industry. A sham that would have caused local government to raise taxes to replace the non-tax revenues paid by the wireless industry for fair-market site rentals.

SB 649 was opposed by nearly 300 local governments and government associations representing over 95% of the citizens of California who knew that they were being taken for a ride. It was also opposed by the AARP and the Teamsters.

It took the vision and courage of Governor Jerry Brown to VETO this horrible bill, and all local governments and their citizens in this Golden State thank him for his leadership and courage to buck the will of the wireless industry!

My partner, Robert (“Tripp”) May points out that Governor Brown sent us all an important message in his veto statement. Governor Brown said in relevant part:

There is something of real value in having a process that results in extending this innovative technology rapidly and efficiently. Nevertheless, I believe that the interest which localities have in managing the rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill.

Tripp notes that this is a value proposition: Each side should get real value.  SB 649 had no real value for the people of California because there were no real duties on the part of the wireless industry.  Value isn’t found in a blatant wealth transfer that results in the reduction in police and fire funding.  When the wireless industry gets that key point, and is prepared to discuss a true small cell bill (sorry…35 cubic feet is not small) they will find willing negotiators in California’s local government community, and among our partners.

Jonathan

To read Governor Brown’s veto message, click on the following link: Sb_649_Veto_Message_2017

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Crown Castle Upping the Game in Small Cells

I’ve had a chance to see a preview of some very innovative designs by Crown Castle to hide pairs of Ericsson antenna/radio integrated small cells on light standards. Photos to follow soon.

Crown Castle is to be commended. This is standard-setting stuff.

jlk

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

SB649: Autonomous Cars and Autonomous Lies

In a frantic effort to try and salvage SB649 (the “Wireless Industry Prevarication and Theft of the People’s Property Act”) from a veto by Gov. Brown, the wireless industry has come up with a nifty new lie: Without 5G small cells we cannot have autonomous cars.

Huh?

Well, with other industry ‘sounds good’ myths debunked, . . . → Read More: SB649: Autonomous Cars and Autonomous Lies

Sprint, T-Mobile, Cable TV, Mobilitie, and Removal Bonds

Months ago I was pondering the society news pages talking about Sprint pursuing a marriage with the cable TV industry. Today the society pages say the off-again, on-again romance between Sprint and T-Mobile is back on-again, and may well lead to their marriage. If that marriage is consummated, I think it’s likely that T-Mobile will . . . → Read More: Sprint, T-Mobile, Cable TV, Mobilitie, and Removal Bonds

A Modest Proposal to ‘Shake Up’ SB 649

California is a part of the Pacific Rim’s earthquake ring of fire, as the wireless industry likes to remind our State Senators and Assembly Members. In fact, as part of its full court press on California legislators to pass SB 649 into law, one of the more commonly-heard arguments in legislative offices is that 5G . . . → Read More: A Modest Proposal to ‘Shake Up’ SB 649

New SB 649 Amendments: Lipstick On a Pig

I’ve just seen the latest set of 61 amendments to SB 649. They’ll be published tomorrow (Thursday). Most of them are word corrections. A few are substantive and make SB 649 even worse for the citizens of California. No fix to the wireless digital divide. No fix to the unfunded state mandate. No fix for . . . → Read More: New SB 649 Amendments: Lipstick On a Pig

More Fun with the IRS Collections Department

Apparently the ‘IRS’ still wants me to pay them $4,000. Dang, I knew I should have cut back on the Starbucks and put those dollars in a piggy bank. I could have paid off the ‘debt’ in just a few weeks! Ahem. Well, here for your listening pleasure for about the next 30 minutes are . . . → Read More: More Fun with the IRS Collections Department

Page 1 of 4212345...102030...Last »