• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Cell Tower and Wireless Telecommunications Blog

Since 2004, Steel in the Air has served over 3,000 clients, reviewed over 10,000 cellular leases and tracked over 2,000 lease buyout offers. We represent private landowners, corporate property owners and public entities in lease negotiations against wireless carriers and tower companies. We also consult on cell site and cell tower valuation and brokerage. Our cell tower and cell site database has grown to encompass over 285,000 cell site locations nationwide.

Lease Optimization Companies

AT&T Wants to Buy Your Tower! (Well, Not Really)

September 28, 2018 by Ken Schmidt 6 Comments

A client of ours owns more than a few cell towers that have AT&T as a collocation tenant.  They recently received this letter, yet another in a long line of letters that threaten the tower owner with some dire consequence if they don't renegotiate or sell their tower to AT&T.   

In this case, the threat is somewhat comical.  "The sale of your tower to certain parties may result in AT&T sending a non-renewal notice regarding our lease."  How is that a threat?   If a tower owner has already sold the tower to a third party, why would they care whether AT&T sends a non-renewal notice?  Perhaps AT&T's thought is that if the seller needs to get an estoppel from AT&T regarding its lease to present to the buyer, that AT&T's can thwart the sale of the tower by instead sending a notice of non-renewal? 

In our experience, most buyers don't really care whether a notice of non-renewal is sent, provided that there is enough term remaining before they can choose not to renew or if the tower is located in an area with zoning regulations that prohibit construction of new towers near existing towers.

The other comical part is that AT&T (through its' financial supplier) is asking for lease information about each tower so that the financial supplier can process the information and make an offer.  Of course, AT&T then also has information about other subleases that the tower owner has on your tower which can be used against the tower owner in future lease negotiations.  

If you are inclined to sell your tower, reach out to us and we can give you a free back of the napkin estimate of the value of the tower.  We won't use your information against you and we won't threaten you with sending laughable notice's of non-renewal in order to get you to sell.  If you aren't interested in selling but feel like you need some help in addressing these threats from AT&T, please call us to discuss your situation further.  

 

Filed Under: Wireless Carriers in the News, Lease Optimization Companies, Tenant Collocation and Subleasing, Cell Tower Valuation and Brokerage Tagged With: AT&T, collocation, Threats

American Tower’s Aggressive Response to Build-To-Relo Towers

June 11, 2018 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

Previously, we wrote about Tillman Infrastructure, a tower company that has expanded significantly to build towers near existing towers to encourage wireless carriers to move from the existing tower to the new tower, all in an effort to reduce lease rates. For over a year now, tower companies have publicly discounted the impact of these “build-to-relo” tower companies as non-threatening. However, in the clearest confirmation yet that the public tower companies are worried about the build-to-relo tower companies, we are starting to see concentrated efforts by American Tower to combat these new tower company threats.

Recently, we noticed that American Tower was calling its landowners to convince them to call American Tower if they noticed a new tower being proposed or constructed near the tower owned by American Tower on their property. We questioned how effective this would be, as we suspect most of the relocation towers are being built in areas where there is no zoning, so the landowners wouldn’t know about it until a new tower was actually being built, at which point it would be too late.

We were recently shown a copy of a letter that American Tower sent its vendors in the last week that indicates American Tower believes the practice of building towers in close proximity to existing towers is “unnecessary, short-sighted, and reckless.” American Tower further suggests that this practice “harms existing landlords, needlessly clutters otherwise peaceful neighborhoods (ask the neighbors of any existing American Tower about needless clutter), wastes precious resources, and does nothing to improve the coverage, capacity, or quality of today’s stressed wireless networks.” In a further appeal to governmental entities, American Tower further states that “it could even delay the badly needed deployment of next-generation wireless technologies.” American Tower fails to state the real reason they object to these efforts – that it removes AT&T or Verizon or T-Mobile, or more than one, from an existing American Tower site, thereby significantly reducing revenue and reducing same tower operating margin even more.

American Tower then indicates in the letter that its vendors must sign an amendment to their Master Contractor Agreement with American Tower that states the vendor will not “participate in the development of any new towers that are within a half mile of an existing ATC site.” Failure to sign the amendment by June 15, 2018 will result “in an immediate change in your vendor approval status, up to and including removal of the ability to be hired for work directly by ATC and the ability to access any ATC site on behalf of others.” (Bold emphasis added by us) In short, if you don’t sign, you can’t work for us and you can’t visit our sites while doing work for anyone else.

We have to question whether there wasn’t a less heavy-handed method of addressing the problem that didn’t alienate contractors and force them to consider whether they really care to work for American Tower at all. First, the universal half mile restriction is unreasonable. It is completely possible that a wireless carrier would want to build a tower within a ½ mile of an American Tower site for reasons that have nothing to do with relocation. Furthermore, the language of the amendment includes all American Tower sites including managed sites, which means a vendor would not be able to participate in the development of any tower near sites that American Tower manages, which includes thousands of vacant rooftops that have no wireless carriers using them. Secondly, the decision by American Tower to bar vendors that don’t sign from accessing American Tower sites on behalf of other parties seems vindictive and ultimately divisive. While American Tower suggests in the letter that they try to act in an “ethical and professional manner in each of the 16 countries where we operate,” we question whether this restriction is more vindictive than professional. Are they also going to restrict companies that aren’t their vendors from accessing American Tower sites if they find they worked on competing towers? Would this extend to all vendors?

While we understand that reasonable people can disagree on the need for the amendment to the Master Contractor Agreement given the circumstances, we have to believe there was a better way to handle this matter. The short time frame for response given and the threatening tone of the letter suggests a disdain for all contractors who do work for American Tower, regardless of their intentions or involvement in actual relocation. This letter seems focused on penalizing all contractors and exacting revenge on the carriers who are considering relocation. This letter also completely fails to acknowledge American Tower’s own role in this matter in their unwillingness to negotiate lease amendments with AT&T and Verizon that would encourage them to stay on the towers as opposed to resorting to moving their equipment to adjacent towers.

We agree that tower companies need to protect their assets and that building new towers near existing towers doesn’t make a lot of sense, but this particular approach seems rash and not fully baked. It alienates contractors and ultimately won’t have that much of an impact on the build-to-relo tower companies. Fortunately, there is no shortage of work these days for contractors, so we wouldn’t be surprised if some of them just choose not to sign this agreement. One has to wonder what will happen after the first time American Tower rejects contractors that are hired by a carrier to perform modification work on that carrier’s site at an ATC tower.

Filed Under: Cell Tower Companies in the News, Lease Optimization Companies, Wireless Infrastructure Industry Players, Wireless Industry Market Dynamics Tagged With: American Tower, cell towers

Md7 Sending AT&T Renegotiation Letters- without Disclosing Letter is from Md7

August 15, 2017 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

We had heard previously that AT&T wasn't willing to allow lease optimization firms to send out letters on its letterhead without disclosing that the letter did not include actually come from the AT&T.   A client just received a letter though that clearly does not include anything identifying that Md7 (a lease optimization company) is involved.   We assume that Md7 is involved because the address on the letter as shown in the letterhead below

just happens to match that of Md7's offices.

The letter is the same as many other letters that are going out predominantly to private tower owners and municipal tower owners indicating that AT&T may extend or terminate the lease at the end of the current term and that AT&T is implementing a new program to "evaluate terms and conditions of all leases coming up for renewal, explore advance renegotiation options and consider alternative site locations." (emphasis added)   AT&T further requests that the tower owner: 

It appears that Md7 and AT&T have decided to remove any indication that Md7 is involved here altogether (except for the address).  Is that because the renegotiation efforts have been unsuccessful otherwise or is AT&T just looking to ratchet up the heat on tower owners to remove the opportunity for rent increases due to possible FirstNet modifications?  How many times can a company threaten to terminate a lease but not actually terminate it before owners just completely ignore the requests?   AT&T knows and based upon the fact that they keep sending the letters, there must be some tower owners that accept the revised terms with each round of letters.  

Filed Under: Best Practices for Landowners, Government Entities & Venue Owners, Lease Optimization Companies, Tenant Collocation and Subleasing Tagged With: Md7, Lease Renegotiation, AT&T

Et Tu, Brute? Verizon Appears to Have Hired Accenture to Renegotiate Cell Tower Leases Using Same Tired Threats of Relocation

July 28, 2017 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

Photo of Cell Tower
A cell tower with a substantial amount of equipment at the third RAD center
A municipal client, who has multiple public safety towers upon which Verizon is colocated, received a call and letter from a Verizon representative asking for reduced lease rate terms and escalation. The letter is on Verizon letterhead and does not make clear the relationship between Accenture and Verizon but refers to the Accenture employee or contractor as a "Verizon Representative." However, in the email from this representative, the signature block is for Accenture.  We surmise this means that Verizon is using Accenture instead of Black Dot or Md7 to renegotiate its leases. This is disappointing because Verizon has historically chosen not to stoop to these types of misleading negotiation tactics. And lest you think it is because of the ever more competitive wireless industry – Verizon still generates a very healthy 45.7% wireless profit margin.  

The letter states:  

As discussed during your recent call with ________, a Verizon representative, we are currently reviewing our real estate portfolio to assess market rates and trends. To remain competitive and provide the best value to our customers, we propose to modify our site lease terms, based on our knowledge of the market and our analysis of each site as follows:

 

 It further goes on to state (and this is the funny part):

Additionally, for all sites identified in this document, payment of rent shall include the following equipment rights:

  • 30,000 square inches wind load surface area at the RAD center (if available);
  • 10’ tip to tip RAD, if available. If not, space available up to 10’;
  • All you can build fixed fee amendments for the contract duration within the allotted tip to tip vertical and 30,000 square inches wind load surface area;
  • 16 cables;
  • No additional rent or fees for any additions or modifications to equipment throughout the contract term as long as the equipment rights identified above are not exceeded.

If we can't reach an agreement, we will remove you from our relocation list as we continue to evaluate our real estate portfolio.

As always, there is the implicit threat of termination – although carefully couched in language that doesn't constitute an anticipatory breach. So in essence, Verizon wants 30,000 square inches of equipment space in their 10' RAD center along with 16 cables. So no matter how much capacity this reduces on the tower or how much a tower owner would have to pay to structurally upgrade the tower to accommodate it, Verizon expects not to pay any additional fees. Generally, this is ludicrous and no tower owner should ever agree to this loading, regardless of whether they end up negotiating more favorable rent terms, in order to ensure the longevity of the lease. We aren't suggesting that Verizon may not eventually relocate some cell sites, just that it won't be that common and will be reserved for situations where they can save enough money by moving to justify the substantial expense of doing so.   

In this case, our municipal tower owner will be telling Verizon that they can keep their name on the relocation list. There is no chance on any of them that Verizon will end up moving. If you receive one of these Verizon/Accenture letters or calls threatening to renegotiate your lease or relocate the tower, please contact us.  

Filed Under: Counties, Municipalities and Public Entities, Wireless Lease Negotiations & Valuation, Wireless Carriers in the News, Lease Optimization Companies, Tenant Collocation and Subleasing, Private Landowners, Lease Terminations Tagged With: Lease Renegotiation, Verizon, Accenture

Want a Kinder Less Aggressive Tower Company Leasing Specialist? Just Fill Out a Survey!

July 27, 2017 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

Image of surveyOne of our client's called us yesterday to let us know that they had been beleaguered by a tower company rep who was perhaps too anxious and aggressive regarding a lease extension for a lease that wasn't set to expire for another 8 years.   This particular client has a Mona Lisa tower- a phrase American Tower used previously to refer to 4-6 carrier towers.   In other words, it wasn't going anywhere.   For some reason, the tower company rep felt that being aggressive and making all kinds of threats to move the tower and to cease discussions would make the landowner agree to the proposed terms.   

The landowner received a survey from the tower company- a generic one that asked about how the landowner felt about the tower company and whether lease payments were coming on time.   The landowner filled out the survey and added comments at the bottom that he didn't appreciate the rep's aggressive nature and angry demeanor.   Within a few days, the agent called him and apologized and the negotiations took a decidedly more friendly turn.    Perhaps that was because our client's tower is a very valuable tower.   Perhaps not.  Either way, if you are having a problem with your tower company rep and their negotiating tactics, fill out a survey or let the company know directly.   While the rep will and should continue to make threats about moving the tower, they should be able to do it in a less aggressive and cordial manner.  Both parties should remember that these negotiations are not personal, they are just business.  Treat the discussion as a business discussion, remove the personal aspect, and if you need help determining the business terms, consider contacting us.  

Filed Under: Wireless Lease Negotiations & Valuation, Lease Buyouts, Best Practices for Landowners, Government Entities & Venue Owners, Lease Buyout Companies in the News, Lease Optimization Companies, Private Landowners, Lease Extensions and Expirations

Sprint Enters the Lease Renegotiation Game Again

April 11, 2017 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

A landowner client of ours received this email from LCC, a company allegedly acting on behalf of Sprint where they claim that if the landowner doesn't agree to concessions, that Lendlease will consider relocating the Sprint site.  

Screen shot of email from Sprint
Email from Sprint Representative to Landowner

If you receive a similar request from Sprint, LCC, or Lendlease or another cell tower lease optimization company, please contact us.  We can help you evaluate the proposal and determine whether it is probable that Sprint would move in the event you choose not to accept their proposed rent reduction.

Filed Under: Lease Rates and Lease Valuation, Wireless Lease Negotiations & Valuation, Lease Optimization Companies, Churches, Wireless Industry Market Dynamics, Private Landowners Tagged With: Lease Renegotiation, Sprint, Lendlease, LCC, Rip-n-replace

Zayo Group and Md7 Proposes Rent Reductions to $0/mo.

November 2, 2012 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

In a bold effort, MD7 on behalf of Zayo Group sent a letter to a client of ours asking the client to reduce the rent for the fiber access lease on their rooftop to $0/mo.   Their argument (a weak one) is that they are more akin to a utility and should be charged like one.   Since you don’t charge the power company to come on your property, why would you charge Zayo? [Read more…] about Zayo Group and Md7 Proposes Rent Reductions to $0/mo.

Filed Under: Backhaul and Fiber Optics, Wireless Lease Negotiations & Valuation, Lease Optimization Companies

MD7 and the Value of a “Guarantee”

June 12, 2010 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

In the last 6 months, Md7 has been offering landowners a guarantee on their T-Mobile ground and rooftop leases equivalent to 10 years.   What may not be clear when they offer this guarantee is that T-Mobile is not the company making the guarantee- instead a subsidiary of Md7 named Md7 Capital Three is making the guarantee.  Some of our clients have started negotiations with Md7 believing that T-Mobile is the one who is actually guaranteeing the lease and did not know until retaining our services that Md7 Capital Three is actually the guarantor. [Read more…] about MD7 and the Value of a “Guarantee”

Filed Under: Wireless Lease Negotiations & Valuation, Lease Optimization Companies Tagged With: T-Mobile, Md7, Lease Renegotiation

Questionable Negotiating Tactics of Cell Tower Contracts

February 26, 2010 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

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. [Read more…] about Questionable Negotiating Tactics of Cell Tower Contracts

Filed Under: Lease Optimization Companies, New Wireless Telecom Leases

AT&T Mistakenly Reduces Cell Phone Tower Lease Rent

June 24, 2007 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

AT&T (previously Cingular), through a lease optimization firm (either BlackDot or Md7), contacts a landowner with a cell phone tower lease with AT&T and requests that the owner reduce their rent. The landowner tells AT&T that they won’t reduce the rent and does not agree to the proposed amendment to the cell phone tower lease. AT&T reduces the rent checks anyway. [Read more…] about AT&T Mistakenly Reduces Cell Phone Tower Lease Rent

Filed Under: Lease Rates and Lease Valuation, Lease Optimization Companies, Lease Terminations Tagged With: AT&T

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

RECENT POSTS

  • Winners and Losers of the FCC Small Cell Order
  • What Makes Cell Towers Competitive?
  • Verizon’s Adds Insult to Injury to Cities After Successful Lobbying the FCC to Reduce City Small Cell Fees

Most Popular Posts

  • DISH’s NB-IOT Network Plans- More than Just a License Saver Design?
  • Winners and Losers of the FCC Small Cell Order
  • Why Did My Crown Castle Lease Revenue Share Payments Go Up or Down?

Categories

  • Wireless Lease Negotiations & Valuation
    • Lease Rates and Lease Valuation
    • Lease Buyouts
    • Small Cell and DAS Management
    • Tenant Collocation and Subleasing
    • Cell Tower Maps and Locations
    • Cell Tower Valuation and Brokerage
    • Equipment Modifications & Lease Renegotiations
    • New Wireless Telecom Leases
    • Lease Extensions and Expirations
    • Lease Terminations
  • Best Practices for Landowners, Government Entities & Venue Owners
    • Counties, Municipalities and Public Entities
    • Schools
    • Business and Venue Owners
    • Churches
    • Private Landowners
  • Cell Tower Builds & Wireless Technology
    • 5G
    • Backhaul and Fiber Optics
    • Wireless Devices
    • Cell Towers and Safety
    • Cell Tower and Cell Site Development
    • Spectrum and Policy
    • LTE Deployment
    • Subscribers and Data Demand
    • Wi-Fi & Wireless Devices
    • HetNet in the News
  • Wireless Infrastructure Industry Players
    • Cell Tower Companies in the News
    • Wireless Carriers in the News
    • Lease Buyout Companies in the News
    • Lease Optimization Companies
    • Wireless Industry Market Dynamics
  • Steel in the Air News
  • Uncategorized

Archives

Tags

5G American Tower AT&T at&t map Black Dot C-RAN capex CCI cell site lease cell tower leasing companies cell towers Cincinnati Bell Comcast Crown Castle DAS Densify Earnings Calls Extenet FCC Lease Extensions and Expirations Lease Renegotiation LTE-U macrocells Md7 Mobilitie MVNO Net Neutrality network coverage Network Optimization Orlando overhaul pole top SBA SBA Communications small cell Small Cell Policy Small Cells Sprint sprint map T-Mobile t-mobile map Verizon verizon map Wireless Capital Partners wireless companies

Copyright © 2019 · Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in