Yes. It was a bad decision on CCI's old executive team's behalf to litigate—perhaps just one more reason why CCI has new board members and a new CEO. The public tower companies stopped being carrier-friendly once they stopped chasing US build-to-suit opportunities and focused on trying to maximize the rent at every tower site. Those actions spawned Tristar Investors and Tillman Infrastructure. It started the build-to-relocate tower development business model in the US. Whether the decision to focus on driving higher rent on existing towers vs. building and operating more towers for the carrier was a good decision or not remains to be seen. But suing your tenants for ticky-tacky crap like this isn't a good part of any business model and will further drive carriers to pursue non-public tower company towers in the future.
Do you think the jury made the right decision?
Aaron T.
11mo
All that for "door swing" Agreed with the Jury--what about HVACs that stick out beyond the platform? but are not connected to the ground or lease area?
Tony zumMallen
11mo
Seems pretty open and shut!
Network Deployment and Project Manager | Leading Network Deployment Projects | Leading Network Enhancement Projects
11moBack in the day the major carriers decided to sell off their tower assets. If I remember right, it started when SprintPCS tower division closed down and sold their assets to SBA, American Tower, or CCI ( I don’t remember which) because it was too much work to manage towers. Then Verizon did the same thing. Verizon’s reasoning was, “we are not a tower company, we are a wireless service provider”. And the cash generated by the sale of towers and other wireless infrastructure was then used to fund network expansion. So if carriers are complaining now about ever increasing rents, as they have every right to, it seems that they created this situation by selling their assets to tower companies.