Category: General

California: Wireless Industry Gearing Up to Attack State Wireless Legislation and CEQA

California: Wireless Industry Gearing Up to Attack State Wireless Legislation and CEQA

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

california_targetIt appears that the one of the leading wireless industry trade associations is getting ready to launch a new California legislative initiative to sharply restrict existing siting controls by local governments under current laws, and to marginalize CEAQ by changing the Permit Streamlining Act.

A copy of the circulating draft found its way into my hands, which appears to be authored by a well-known California wireless industry lawyer with input from a government affairs attorney working at a major wireless trade association.

There are two main areas expected to form the industry’s attack.    Each area of the expected attack is discussed below.

I
Unlimited Permit Terms
for Wireless Sites

Under an existing California law from 2006, Cities and Counties shall not. . .”[u]n reasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility.  Limits of less than 10 years are resumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or substantial land use reasons.   However, cities and counties may establish a build out period for a site.”  (California Government Code § 65850.6).

In a circulating industry draft, they would bar all wireless permit duration and build out limitations.  They seem intent on accomplish this by changing the Government Code to read that Cities and Counties shall not “[l]imit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility.”

As you can see, the draft amendment if enacted would require that when a city or country government issues a wireless telecommunications facility permit, there be no limit to its term.

As a “Plan B” if the industry is unsuccessful in finding a legislator willing to take the political heat for deleting the term limitation altogether (which will certainly be unpopular with the public who care about such things), it appears that the industry will press for permits that are valid for at longer than 25 years.

II
Short Circuit the
Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA Processes

The wireless industry seems to believe that 2014 is the right year to modify California’s Permit Streamlining Act (the “PSA”) to correct what it suddenly sees as a problem dating back some 20 years.

The law for the past 20 years has been that the PSA deadline for a government to take an action on a project only starts to run when the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEAQ”) review is  completed, but that the time-frame for completing the CEAQ analysis is not mandatory.  The ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ (as viewed by the wireless industry) is to perform a major rejiggering of the established PSA rules.  The rejiggering would  be to make the government take-action deadline based on when the application is tendered as complete to the local government, thereby ignoring whether the CEAQ process has been completed when the clock runs out.

To preempt CEAQ as a vital element of wireless siting–as it appears is the wireless industry’s goal–the industry will apparently propose multiple and significant changes to Government Code § 65950.

Maybe the industry will try slipping its 2014 Christmas List above into the now dormant AB 162 when that bill is expected to return from the dead sometime in the next 45 days.  Stay tuned… this will be interesting.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Tripp May Sworn In To California Bar

Tripp May Sworn In To California Bar

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

swearing_in_tripp_may_20131127_DSCN1989November 27, 2013: 11:50 a.m.

Paperwork… paperwork… paperwork!  Especially to get sworn in as an Attorney and Counselor at Law in California.

Tripp looks on as Chris Sansone, Esq., Notary goes through the required verifications and completes the required paperwork just prior to administering the Attorney’s Oath to Tripp.

Natalia Shparber, Esq. keeps an eye on the process.

Just a few minutes later we welcomed Robert Carroll May, III, Esq., to the ranks of licensed attorneys in California.

Very satisfying, indeed.

JLK

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Robert (Tripp) May, III Passes California Bar Exam

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer
Robert Caroll May, III soon to be sworn into the California Bar!
Robert (“Tripp”) May, III soon to be sworn into the California Bar!

I am immensely pleased (and just a bit proud) to report that Tripp May needs to change his business cards.  Out with those that said, “Post Bar Law Clerk” and in with those that say, “Lawyer”.

The news came at 6:00 p.m. tonight.   I expect he’ll be sworn in early next week.

Did I mention how proud of him I am?  I really am!

Way to go, Tripp!

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Don’t Be A Casualty of a Wireless Lease Casualty Clause

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

A “casualty” clause in a lease is commonly included to provide a way of altering the terms of a lease or outright terminating a lease before its natural expiration if something bad happen.

Something like a fire.

Take a look below at the standard template language found in a very well-known carrier’s boilerplate agreement.  After that, I’ll tear it apart for you, as a potential cell site landlord, to better understand what’s going on, and how it might come back to bite you.

CASUALTY. Landlord will provide notice to Tenant of any casualty or other harm affecting the Property within forty-eight (48) hours of the casualty or other harm. If any part of the Communication Facility or Property is damaged by casualty or other harm as to render the Premises unsuitable, in Tenant’s sole determination, then Tenant may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to Landlord, which termination will be effective as of the date of such casualty or other harm. Upon such termination, Tenant will be entitled to collect all insurance proceeds payable to Tenant on account thereof and to be reimbursed for any prepaid Rent on a prorata basis. Landlord agrees to permit Tenant to place temporary transmission and reception facilities on the Property, but only until such time as Tenant is able to activate a replacement transmission facility at another location; notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement, such temporary facilities will be governed by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including Rent. If Landlord or Tenant undertakes to rebuild or restore the Premises and/or the Communication Facility, as applicable, Landlord agrees to permit Tenant to place temporary transmission and reception facilities on the Property at no additional Rent until the reconstruction of the Premises and/or the Communication Facility is completed. If Landlord determines not to rebuild or restore the Premises, Landlord will notify Tenant of such determination within thirty (30) days after the casualty or other harm. If Landlord does not so notify Tenant, then Landlord will promptly rebuild or restore the Premises to substantially the same condition as existed before the casualty other harm. Landlord agrees that the Rent shall be abated until the Premises are rebuilt or restored, unless Tenant places temporary transmission and reception facilities on the Property.

Okay, now let’s rip this bad-boy paragraph apart and see what’s under the hood…

“Landlord will provide notice to Tenant of any casualty or other harm affecting the Property…”  This sentence places an affirmative duty (a burden) on the landlord to notify the wireless carrier of “any casualty or other harm” affecting the property.  So what qualifies as a casualty or other harm affecting the Property?  Well, it might be a fire burning down the building, or earthquake, or airplane crashing onto the property, but those are all obvious.  What about a toxic gas cloud from a tanker spill 3 miles away wafting over the Property?  Yup. How about a small fire in a

 “…within forty-eight (48) hours of the casualty or other harm.”  Well, that’s 48 hours after ‘it’ happens, whatever ‘it’ is.  If you are a landlord who does not live at the property, you might now become aware of the ‘it’ that happens on a Friday night at 7:30 p.m. until you come in on Monday morning.  By this time you’ll be in breach of your duty to notify the tenant within 48 hours!

“If any part of the Communication Facility or Property is damaged by casualty or other harm as to render the Premises unsuitable, in Tenant’s sole determination, then Tenant may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to Landlord, which termination will be effective as of the date of such casualty or other harm.” Okay, let’s break this into even smaller chunks:

“If any part of the Communication Facility…” which would mean the cell site, or any element of it…

“…or Property…” which is your property, upon which the cell site resides…

“…is damaged by casualty or other harm…”  which, as we’ve seen above, is anything bad…

“…as to render the Premises unsuitable,…”  Unsuitable?  Perhaps they just don’t like the Premises anymore. .. 

“…in Tenant’s sole determination…” which means that only the tenant gets to decide, and missing the magic word “reasonable.”

“…then Tenant may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to Landlord,”… Okay, we’re outta here because we sent you a letter…

“…which termination will be effective as of the date of such casualty or other harm.”  This allows your tenant to backdate the termination date to the date of the oops.

“Upon such termination, Tenant will be entitled to collect all insurance proceeds payable to Tenant on account thereof…”   If your tenant is named as an additional insured on your fire policy, get who gets to collect.

“…and to be reimbursed for any prepaid Rent on a prorata basis.”   So, you the tenant just paid you the day before the oops for the entire month, you get to refund all but one day’s rent back to your tenant.

“Landlord agrees to permit Tenant to place temporary transmission and reception facilities on the Property, but only until such time as Tenant is able to activate a replacement transmission facility at another location;…”  Hold on, the cell site burned down and they terminated the lease, but they still get to bring a temporary cell site on your property?  Yup.  You got it.    For how long?  Good question!  Since the lease is terminated, they get to stay for as long as they want, somewhere on your property.

“…notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement,…“ Read it this way: ‘even though the Lease is now terminated…’

This is a "casualty" under most cell site leases, even if the fire was caused by the tenant!
This is a “casualty” under most cell site leases, even if the fire was caused by the tenant!

“…such temporary facilities will be governed by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including Rent.” …it’s as if you are on a day-to-day agreement, which you cannot terminate, under the terms and conditions of the old lease.

“If Landlord or Tenant undertakes to rebuild or restore the Premises and/or the Communication Facility, as applicable, Landlord agrees to permit Tenant to place temporary transmission and reception facilities on the Property at no additional Rent until the reconstruction of the Premises and/or the Communication Facility is completed.”  But if YOU or the tenant decides to rebuild or fix the cell site and your tenant does NOT terminate the lease, you agree to allow the tenant to bring a temporary cell site on your property…for no additional rent…while the fixing is taking place.

“If Landlord determines not to rebuild or restore the Premises, Landlord will notify Tenant of such determination within thirty (30) days after the casualty or other harm.” if you do not intend to fix their cell site, you have to tell them that within 30 days after the oops occurs.  Do you think you’re going to have your insurance settlement nailed down in 30 days?  Nope, me neither.

“If Landlord does not so notify Tenant, then Landlord will promptly rebuild or restore the Premises to substantially the same condition as existed before the casualty other harm.”  Let’s just say that if you forget to notify the tenant within the 30 day window?  Get who gets locked-in to fixing the damage?  By the way, get who’s going to get stuck with the bill?  Yeah, that’s right.

“Landlord agrees that the Rent shall be abated until the Premises are rebuilt or restored, unless Tenant places temporary transmission and reception facilities on the Property.”  So if they don’t terminate, and they don’t bring a temporary cell site on the property, you get no rent while their smoldering remains litter your property.

So here’s the kicker: Think about the photograph just above of the burning cell tower.   That fire was caused by a welder working on the tower at the direction of the tenant or subtenant.  Under the language of the casualty clause you’ve just read, even if a fire (or other casualty) is caused by a tenant’s activities at a cell site…welding, for example…the tenant can still take advantage of all of the benefits of the casualty clause.

Now that you see how the standard cell lease casualty clause does nothing to protect the landlord, and everything to benefit the tenant (and only the tenant), you understand need to revise the casualty clause to limit it to apply to casualties not caused by or attributable to your tenant, and to strike portions of it altogether.

Like I said, don’t be a casualty of a wireless lease casualty clause. We can help you avoid this predicament.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Rarer than the Loch Ness Monster: the Mono-Scaffold Wireless Tower!

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer
The elusive and rarely photographed Mono-Scaffold.
The elusive and never-before photographed Mono-Scaffold wireless tower.  Click to enlarge.

It is rare that I have the privilege of capturing a never-before documented wireless tower design.  Yet fate has chosen to grace me by allowing me to find, in the wild, this most elusive of wireless tower designs…

…the Mono-Scaffold!

While hereto-now only hushed rumors of this rarest of tower designs have been uttered in the strictest of confidences between contract wireless engineers working for carriers, I am able to confirm with irrefutable evidence forthe international scientific and lay communities the first documented, photographed mono-scaffold site.

This mono-scaffold site, located in Malibu California on Pacific Coast Highway, forever quiets the popular speculation of the existence of this fabled design.  It is true.  It exists.

Having now proven the existence of a Mon0-Scaffold, I must now turn my attention to the most important follow-on query:

Is a Mono-Scaffold subject to Section 6409(a) of The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012?

A lessor question, but important in its own right:

Is a Mono-Scaffold is subject to EIA/TIA-222?

As is most often the case, one answer provokes several new questions.  The expansion of knowledge continues.

You are lucky to live in the time during which the existence of the fabled Mono-Scaffold was proven as a fact.

If you wish to field-verify my findings, I encourage you to navigate…quickly…to N34.0394 W118.6717.

I urge you to hurry.  There is no telling how long the Mono-Scaffold will remain in this one location.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3rd Party Engineers, T-Mobile & Local Jurisdictions

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

T-Mobile’s National External Affairs (“NEA”) Newsletter is a monthly online publication aimed at T-Mobile’s  outside siting professionals and others related to siting.  NEA was kind enough to add me to their subscriber list.

What follows below is an article appearing in the July 2013 issue of T-Mobile’s National External Affairs’ Siting Newsletter.  It describes T-Mobile’s view of 3rd party engineers retained by local jurisdictions primary to evaluate towers for structural integrity during upgrades.

While we on the government side might expect the article to be one sided and dismissive, I have to say that NEA’s presentation is thoughtful, considered, and very balanced.  As the article concludes, “It’s not just technical answers that will help achieve success, it is also building understanding from all sides of the equation.”  Well said, T-Mobile.

I encourage you to read the entire article below.  I reprint it here with T-Mobile’s prior written permission.

Siting from Different Perspectives:
3rd Party Engineers, T-Mobile & Local Jurisdictions

A growing number of jurisdictions are outsourcing wireless site engineering to third-party firms, especially when it comes to municipally owned water tanks. The practice creates challenges not only for T-Mobile but also the engineering firms themselves as they strive for a happy medium where wireless facilities can quickly and efficiently be deployed while satisfying municipal objectives surrounding safety and asset protection.

Municipalities turn to outside engineering firms for several reasons, including a feeling that their own staffers are ill-equipped to judge the assertions made by wireless carriers regarding siting. Budgetary constraints also restrict the time and resources municipal employees can dedicate to siting issues.

“They just want to make sure that they’re protected, that they’re protecting their assets, which is why they’re hiring these firms,” said Steve Carlson, partner delivery manager for real estate in T-Mobile’s Minneapolis market.

Minneapolis has a high percentage of wireless facilities installed on water tanks. T-Mobile’s modernization project in the market includes 162 water tank sites out of 698 total sites. It is common practice for cities in the market to require reviews of site applications by third-party engineers anytime a carrier wants to perform a new installation on a tank or conduct any kind of an upgrade.

However, there can be drawbacks for carriers when it comes to dealing with third-party engineering firms. Municipalities generally select the third-party engineering firm with which a carrier must deal, and that firm will bill all charges for time and materials to the carrier. In Minneapolis, the cost of each full review might be $3,000 to more than $10,000, Carlson said.

Often, municipalities provide no oversight of these engineering firms, some of which may run up what appear to be exorbitant bills for their reviews, said Lori LeBlanc, T-Mobile’s senior development manager in Minneapolis. “There’s no checks and balances put into place with regard to the city. It’s almost like an open-ended checkbook,” she said.

Indeed, some engineering firms appear to be taking advantage of the situation by requiring more reviews than needed. For example, T-Mobile has on occasion submitted duplicate plans from a previous installation that an engineering firm approved, only to have the same firm find issues with the new installation. “It’s always a three-review process one way or another,” Carlson said.

In addition to the financial impact, there is also an opportunity cost involved, not just for carriers, who suffer delays in deployment plans, but for local residents, who must wait for upgraded service. Individual site reviews in Minneapolis for T-Mobile modernization projects have taken from three months to more than a year.

Additionally, once a building plan is approved, a number of inspections might be instigated, all of which must be paid for by the carrier.

Further complicating matters is the fact that in Minneapolis, the three third-party engineering firms hired to conduct site reviews are vastly understaffed, with generally only one or two individuals at a firm available to perform all of its water tank reviews. This is especially egregious given the number of site upgrades currently being implemented by T-Mobile and other carriers.

“They did not staff up for the workload that they have. The cities, who are ultimately our landlords, don’t really understand that,” Carlson said.

A view from the other side

While carriers cite a number of issues in dealing with third-part engineering firms, it’s important to remember that those firms also face numerous challenges when it comes to conducting site reviews and granting approvals for wireless installations.

Paul J. Ford and Company was started in 1965. The employee-owned company, which is strictly focused on structural engineering, has offices in Columbus, Ohio; Orlando, Florida; and Atlanta, Georgia. It is registered in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Canada and Venezuela.

Some 40 people work in Paul J. Ford’s telecommunications unit, which has been kept busy lately with requests for site reviews related to LTE upgrades, said the company’s President Kevin Bauman.  He started with Paul J. Ford in 1976, working with the company’s tower business from the start.

Placing communications antennas on a water tank usually involves three parties with divergent interests, Bauman said.

“The municipality wants assurance from a design professional that there will be no negative impact upon their water tank due to the addition of the communication equipment.  The wireless carrier knows that mounting something as small as an antenna on something as large as a water tank should have a negligible impact on the water tanks structural stability.  The structural engineer understands that it isn’t logical to require a thorough and time-consuming structural analysis of the entire water tank for this type of installation, yet some due diligence is required if that company is going to assume the responsibility for the adequacy of the installation,” he said.

Bauman explained the process that engineers go through to ensure that structural integrity and conformance to building standards are fully considered when wireless facilities are planned for installation on water tanks.
“Generally we try to get as much structural information about the water tower as we possibly can. If the water tower is adequate as it now stands, it’s usually impossible to overstress it by adding communications antennas to it,” Bauman said.

However, if the building code has changed, then a thorough structural analysis of the water tank might reveal that the water tank is structurally deficient even though the cause has nothing to do with the addition of the communication antenna. Further, Bauman noted that in many areas of the country, seismic (earthquake) loads are the controlling design criteria and not wind loads or weight.

He contends that mobile carriers often “do not have a real good understanding of the type of things that we need and the type of things they need us to do.”

For one thing, carriers often provide third-party engineering firms with insufficient information and rarely have the original drawings for a site. Bauman said he has received photos of water tanks with no additional specs from carriers that need a site review.

“A structural engineer can’t create a set of drawings and place his/her professional engineers seal on a drawing, if even the most basic structural information about the water tank is unknown,” Bauman noted.

“Many times we get so little information, we back out of the project, and that makes everybody mad,” he said. “But if we lack adequate information we can’t perform the necessary due diligence to form a professional opinion.”
When it comes to water tanks, firms such as his often have a difficult time convincing municipalities that changes to a wireless deployment on a water tank can be so insignificant from a structural viewpoint that they do not require a whole lot of engineering work.

“It’s kind of a no-brainer, but municipalities don’t like to go along with that. They want to see reams of calculations to prove that everything’s okay,” Bauman said.

That’s not to say installing wireless communications equipment on a water tank is child’s play: There are actually lots of unique issues with which to contend.

“The tricky part about doing water tanks is that they have water in them,” Bauman said. It is tough to weld anything to the side of a water tank because the water inside acts as a giant heat sink, making it difficult to develop enough heat for a good weld. In addition, when installing equipment on top of a water tank, any exterior welding can impact the coating inside the tank that protects the water.

Carriers can sometimes attach antennas to water tanks using an epoxy, which can be successful with the right epoxy and environmental conditions. There are also magnetic mounts that can be used for mounting equipment atop a water tank.

“How a structural engineer ever proves to a municipality that the magnets are strong enough, I don’t know,” Bauman said, noting there are no numbers available to prove such a setup works. But numbers are exactly what municipalities want from their third-party engineering firms.

To conduct the necessary structural reviews and provide all of the information demanded by municipalities is a time-consuming endeavor. Bauman said most carriers underestimate the amount of effort involved in water tank site reviews.  “We probably turn down 70 percent of all water tank work because it’s just not worth it,” he added.

Smoothing the process

There is clearly room for improvement in relationships between carriers, municipalities and third-party engineering firms.

Understanding the pressures put upon third-party engineering firms is one way that mobile operators can build rapport with the outside engineers. Simplifying the process from the carrier side is also beneficial.

In the Minneapolis market, where T-Mobile has modernized 106 of 162 water tank sites, the market team has strived to make the third-party review process more efficient. For example, T-Mobile assigned one construction manager to handle all interactions with third-party engineers regarding water tank placements. That helped T-Mobile in terms of tracking projects and consistency in handling issues as they cropped up, though this has admittedly sped up the process only minimally.

However, there is still work to be done.  “In the future, how do we approach the cities for future projects?” asked LeBlanc.

T-Mobile hopes that initiating more conversations with all of the parties involved will lead to more creative solutions for streamlining the approval process for new wireless installations and site upgrades when third-party engineering firms are involved. It’s not just technical answers that will help achieve success, it is also building understanding from all sides of the equation.

Copyright © 2013 T-Mobile US, All rights reserved. The National External Affairs’ Siting Newsletter is a publication that highlights topics of interest to anyone wanting to know more about siting and T-Mobile’s work with communities. For more information, please contact us by telephone (425.383.8413) or by email at natextaffairs@t-mobile.com.
Our mailing address is: T-Mobile US,  12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Land Adjacent to a Cell Tower Lease: Worthless?

Land Adjacent to a Cell Tower Lease: Worthless?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

e911_MUTCD_D12-4.svg (Updated: July 29, 2013. I’ve had a lot of comments about this post, all positive, so I start highlighting similar one-sided provisions in future posts.)

I’ve seen wireless carriers attempt land grabs before through a cell tower lease, but a current incarnation  is particular amusing.

Framed as an “Emergency 911 Service” provision (hey, that sounds like something really important, right?), the carrier’s attorney has authored the lease provision below to allow the carrier to take as much additional land as the carrier needs without benefit of paying rent.

First, I’ll ask you to read the language below, exactly as stated by the wireless carrier, then I’ll parse it for you.

Emergency 911 Service.  In the future, without the payment of additional rent and at a location mutually acceptable to Lessor and Lessee, Lessor agrees that Lessee may add, modify and/or replace equipment in order to be in compliance with any current or future federal, state or local mandated application, including but not limited to emergency 911 communication services.

Okay, piece by piece, let’s deconstruct this this one little sentence with its 58 words:

1. “In the future…” starts about 1 trillionth of a second from right now.  Maybe even sooner.  Okay, you’re in the future.  Oh, by the way, the future never ends.  This clause is good for the remaining term of of the lease to its final extension.

2. “…without the payment of additional rent…”  Do I really need to tell you that this means no more moola for more land?

3. “…and at a location mutually agreeable to Lessor and Lessee…”   Now wait just a minute.  You’re thinking that you can just say there is NO mutually agreeable location, right?  Nope.  Most states impute a good faith term to contracts (including leases which are contracts for the occupancy of land for a term).  This means that you can not mentally cross your fingers when you agree to this provision.   Most likely a judge will ‘help you’ understand your duty to negotiate in good faith.  Judges can be so very helpful.  So how much space is available at the location?  As much as the wireless carrier wants to meet the rest of the provisions

4. “…Lessor agrees that Lessee may…” You, the Lessor, agree that your tenant at the time can do anything described immediately after, so lets look at each thing in turn.

5.”…add…” start with what’s at the site and put more stuff within the existing leased area, or in the new area that they just got for free.

6. “…modify…”  is to take something there and change it, mostly likely to make it bigger or better for the carrier.

7. “…and/or replace…” so maybe the site/stuff in it is added to, modified, AND replaced all in one shot…any individual element, or any in combination will do.

8. “…equipment…” which is NOT usually a defined term in the lease, and since this word is in lower case, it can mean anything from the tower, to the antennas, the radio cabinets, the cables, to the utilities and beyond.  In other words, the carrier is likely to say that everything is equipment, and you bear the burden to disprove it.  Yeah, good luck on that one.

9. “…in order to be in compliance with…”  generally to meet the requirements, but not necessary the minimum requirements of something.  What something?  Keep reading.

10. “…any current or future…” now or in the future.

11. “…federal…” is the federal government, including Congress and all of the known and unknown federal agencies, as well potentially any of the federal military units (Army, Air Force, etc.).

12. “…state…” that big outlined place on the U.S. map where you and several million of your friends live.

13. “…or local…” that smaller outlined place within the bigger outlined place on the U.S. map where you and several hundred thousand of your closest friends live.

14. “…mandated application…” Wow!  A mandated application.  Doesn’t sound like it even rises to the level of a law or regulation.  It’s more like something you might download from the Apple iTunes store or Google Play.  Okay, we know that something is mandated, which suggests that its required.  But the failure to do something required may not be actionable, or actionable at a particular time.  Obviously this term is subject to broad interpretation, and guess who’ll do the interpreting!?

15. “…including but not limited to…”  so whatever is mandated is an include item, but not the only item.

16. “ …emergency 911 communication services.”  So now we really discover that the bolded title of the section, “Emergency 911 Service” is just a ‘red herring’ element of a much larger scheme to separate a landlord from the use and value of his or her property. Yup, emergency 911 communication service sounds really important, but as you can see, it has very little to do with the core of this lease term.

There you have it. Just one little 58 word sentence, which breaks out to 16 elements, all of which are designed to be a free land grab by the tenant.

Do I fault the wireless companies for trying to pull this little shenanigan?

Of course not.

As wireless companies know, and as you should as well, their true duty is to maximize profits for the shareholders.  Their duty to the Landlord is as little as possible, and attempts to reduce that duty by leases and lease amendments are all part of The American Way.

Now you know that the answer to the question in the title of this post depends on whether YOU make it worthless by agreeing to this sucker punch provision.

If you are asked to agree to provisions that you don’t understand, or you don’t think you understand, or even the ones you think you understand but really don’t, you might want talk with an experienced wireless attorney and law firm working for landlords.

If you are looking for a really good law firm that just happens to work for wireless site landlords, I happen to know of one.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AT&T Wireless: It’s All About the Bandwidth, Dummy!

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Cricket_LeapWell, as we all know by know, it turns out that T-Mobile would not feast on the insect.  Rather, AT&T Wireless bit the Bug. Yum!

Cricket will go to AT&T, but that’s a bit of a misstatement. This deal has nothing to do about acquiring cell sites. This deal has nothing to do about keeping the Bug’s subscribers. AT&T intends to eat the guts of the Bug…it’s bandwidth…and spit out most if not all of the exoskeleton (the existing cell sites).

This deal, like most of the deals today, has everything to do about acquiring frequencies. Bandwidth… Black Gold… Texas Tea… Wireless Whiskey…

Okay, I’m being a bit dramatic and channeling Buddy Ebsen, but the fact is that bandwidth means more ‘go real fast’ for the customers, and more ‘go real fast’ for future customers.

The electromagnetic spectrum chart below makes it clear.

Spectrum poster by Randall Munroe (xkcd.com). Used with permission.
Spectrum poster by Randall Munroe http://xkcd.com/273/. Used with permission. Click on the image to enlarge.

Bandwidth is a scarce commodity, and lots of entities are vying to occupy its valuable slivers. Buying bandwidth from current licensees makes more sense–and is lots faster–than bidding on them in future FCC auctions.

More bandwidth…faster…less competition. Now there’s a recipe for success.

For more on why the Eat-a-Bug deal makes sense for AT&T, and is yet another sign of the bandwidth acquisition wars, see AGL Magazine’s insightful article on the topic: CLICK HERE.

JLK

PS: I think Randall Munroe is brilliant. Read his stuff. It’s deep. xkcd.com.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Cal. Real Prop. J. Wireless Leasing Article Co-Authored by Kramer

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

cal_real_prop_journal-cover-2013.MIDSIZE

For those of you who write cell tower leases to protect site landlords, I’m sure you will be interested in a feature scholarly article that I had the privilege of co-authoring with Christina (Chris) Sansone of the Sansone Law Firm.

Titled, “What Landlords Should Know About Cell Site Leasing” and published in the current issue of the California Real Property Journal (the journal of the Real Property Section of the State Bar of California), this is a nuts and bolts guide for practitioners.  Its text is also written to be clearly understandable to non-practitioner landlords and property managers.

The text of the article, supported by nearly 100 footnotes, addresses nearly every facet of cell site leasing from initial negotiations through the end of the lease, whether by termination, expiration, or sale.

I’m particularly proud that our missive was selected as the MCLE Self-Study Article for this issue of the Journal.  Attorneys may earn 1.0 hours of general MCLE credit for reading the article and then answering multiple choice questions regarding the content of the article.  Information about how to secure MCLE credit for reading our work may be found at the end of the article.

If you are a member of the Real Property Law Section of the State Bar of California, you should have already received your copy by mail.

As for the contents of the article, credit Chris for all of the good stuff, as well as her excellent research and analysis.  You can blame me for the stuff you don’t like.

Enjoy.

Jonathan

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

T-Mobile’s Clever Way to Camo a Polish Cell Site

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

T_MoPolandN50_4.5578E19-44.0665_20110906_DSC_0208What better way for T-Mobile to promote its wireless service than to turn a cell site into a billboard advertisement for T-Mobile’s wireless service. It’s kind of a ‘two-fer.’

This billboard/cell site is located west of the Morawica area of Poland, just west of John Paul II International Airport (the Krakow, Poland Airport) on E462.

You can click on the photograph to enlarge it to full size.  I shot this photo during my trip to Central Europe in September, 2011.

Shameless promotion: I have thousands of high resolution photographs of wireless communications sites and components online at CellTowerPhotos.com. My wireless site photographs regularly grace magazine covers and illustrate articles. They also served to illustrate the National Geographic Magazine article on camouflaged cell tower sites, “Cell Phonies” (September 2007).

Photograph Copyright © 2011 Jonathan Kramer. All rights reserved.

-Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail