Regarding the risers in the buildings, a related article might be of some interest....
Right to wire?
Telecom, real estate interests spar over access issue
Stacey Ransco Staff Writer amcity.com
NORTH DALLAS -- Telecommunications companies want to level the playing field through a federal mandate that would allow telecom providers to install equipment into a commercial building to compete for tenants' business.
The telecom industry calls it "nondiscriminatory" or "open" access. The real estate industry refers to it as "forced" or "mandatory" access.
The concerns that real estate professionals harbor originate from a property owner's perspective, and a management attitude. Beyond fighting for their Fifth Amendment property rights, owners and managers are concerned about limited space and security issues.
"If all these providers want to run cable throughout the buildings, with forced access, we'll be required to let them in," says Ray Mackey, president of the Dallas chapter of the Building Owners and Managers Association. He adds that there isn't enough space to accommodate everyone who wants to provide services for the building.
"Owners never want to lose control of their building in anything they do," says Paul Lynn, vice president of site development for U.S. RealTel, a Chicago-based company with offices in Houston. "And that is the only thing he has to offer to protect his clients." U.S. RealTel acts as a facilitator between property owners and telecommunications companies in negotiating agreements.
Professionals in real estate might be more willing to entertain the idea of a solution if they felt there was actually a problem. Building owners, unlike the telecom companies, say there isn't a problem gaining access to buildings.
"We did our own survey, and found that TSPs (telecommunications service providers) are getting in very easily," says Gerry Lederer, vice president of government and industry affairs at BOMA. "Our members are in the business of pleasing tenants, and if a tenant says they want another provider, they'll usually get it."
Lynn says that commercial tenants generally need major telecommunications capabilities to run their business.
"The old adage used to be location, location, location," says Lynn. "Now it's location, location, bandwidth." Real estate professionals agree that if they refused to allow tenants to have a choice in TSPs, they would essentially be shooting themselves in the foot competitively.
Making a deal
Lee Belland is the co-managing partner at Stream Realty Partners, a company that leases and manages about 38 properties in Dallas. "Tenants want to have a choice in telecommunications providers," says Belland. "We've got multiple providers in almost every building that we have."
Belland says building owners should be more than willing to work an agreement out with a TSP that satisfies both parties in order to provide quality telephony services. "A lot of TSPs have come in and said `We don't want to pay that much rent,'" says Belland. "You just have to negotiate an agreement with them as you would with any other tenant."
Belland says that TSPs are great tenants due to their willingness to rent parts of the building that may not be attractive, but are functional. "There's a great incentive there for real estate people to rent to them, especially since that closet they rent may not have been rented otherwise," he says.
Perhaps the biggest slap in the face for the real estate industry is the telecommunications industry's intention to regulate access. To come in and regulate the price TSPs will pay for rent and mandate access is hypocritical coming from an industry demanding deregulation for themselves, say real estate professionals.
"We welcome them into our building, but under an agreement," says Mackey.
"We want to be able to make sure that the companies are reputable and will provide quality service to our tenants, that we get fair compensation of our space, and make sure adequate rules and regulations are put in place to protect our property."
Question of competition
Comments issued by the Wireless Communications Association International in August urged the Federal Communications Commission to require nondiscriminatory access to rooftops, multitenant property and the incumbent local exchange carrier's network interface devices and intra-building wiring. It also sought to ban exclusive contracts between building owners and TSPs.
The association stated that the full potential of competitive telecommunications service won't be realized unless competing providers are accorded nondiscriminatory access to subscribers who reside in multitenant environments. The association attributes problems with access to anti-competitive behavior by incumbents and unreasonable demands by property owners.
"The essence of it is, if we can't reach the customer, there is no competition," says Andrew Kreig, association president. "We want to create an environment where companies have the same rights as monopolies. It's allowing the marketplace to work; you can't have deregulation and a monopoly at the same time."
Kreig argues that open access isn't going to open the floodgates of TSPs on a single building. "You're not going to have eight different providers trying to serve one building," he says. "The issue is if you're going to have two or three." Kreig says that it would be a bad business move to try to do business in a building that already has its share of providers competing for tenants.
"Generally speaking, our competitive companies offer prices 20% to 30% cheaper -- the customers love us," says John Windhausen, president of the Association for Local Telecommunication Services. "About half the building owners give us access without complaining, but the other 50% give us the runaround," he says. "They give a lot of excuses, sometimes they question the legal liabilities; other times they want a percentage of our profits, which eats into the savings that we can offer to their tenants."
When it comes to signing contracts, Windhausen says those companies he represents would be happy to sign a contract with requirements and liabilities. "We just think access should be open to all," he says.
Kreig and Windhausen say they do recognize building owners' Fifth Amendment rights. "They say that this is a taking of their property, but we are willing to pay their fees, a monthly lease amount as well as all the costs incurred," says Windhausen. "We'll pay them their just compensation."
Texas and Connecticut already have passed legislation for open access. "The results from these two states are very, very positive, although we don't have any specific numbers, we will be using those statutes as examples of the potential for this rulemaking," says Windhausen.
"The Texas Legislature stepped out of sync with the rest of the country," says Dallas BOMA's Mackey. "The rule has been in place for a while, but I've never had a telecommunications company come in, insist and push the issue."
The FCC will be considering the nationwide rulemaking in the next year.
Texas' 1999 nondiscriminatory access rule states that if a telecommunications utility holds an appropriate grant and certificate, if required, a public or private property owner may not prevent the utility from installing on the property; interfere with the utility's installation; discriminate against the utility; demand or accept an unreasonable payment from the tenant requesting the services of the utility or the utility itself; or discriminate in favor of or against a tenant because of the utility from which the tenant receives telecommunications service.
It also states that the property owner may impose reasonable conditions on the telecommunications utility to protect the safety, security, appearance and condition of the property; impose a reasonable limitation on the number of such utilities that have access to the owners property; require the utility to bear the cost of installation, operation and removal of property; and require the utility to pay reasonable compensation.
Zebra |
