Harper Macleod LLP’s Post

The First-tier Tribunal has provided further guidance on typical terms in dispute between site providers and operators during negotiation of Code agreements in the latest telecoms case. Read our Insight written with experts Leona Briggs and Siân Burns - https://lnkd.in/er4kpQDg #telecoms #electroniccommunicationscode #propertylitigation

Charlotte Green and I are running a webinar on 4 September at 9.30am providing practical tips on dealing with requests from operators to both survey land and install apparatus. For more information and to register your interest please click the link below. #cms #telecoms #webinar #msv #thecode

For anyone interested in telecoms, please sign up to this webinar: a practical guice to dealing with telecoms operators, which will be presented by my CMS colleagues, Martin Garner and Charlotte Green.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) who deal with most cases referred to Tribunal in relation to the Electronic Communication Code, have now started publishing their decisions online (they can be found here https://lnkd.in/exDVUTrs). In layman’s terms, when a Mobile Network Operator (MNO – think Vodafone, EE, H3G etc) takes a Site Provider (property owner) to court to force an agreement on them to permit an installation on their land or building, this is usually in the FTT. As someone who has worked in the industry for over 27 years, of which the first twelve years was acting for the MNOs, I was involved day-to-day in Site Search and Acquisition for them and have a lot of experience of the process. This entailed finding and reporting to the client potential sites with willing Site Providers for them to locate a base station. Once the Network Planning Engineer had selected the site that gave the best coverage, we would go back to the Site Provider and arrange an MSV (Multi Skilled Visit), simple put, a survey with multiple disciplines to assess the suitability of the site for a base station, following which, drawings were produced, Heads of Terms negotiated, with planning submitted in tandem. Whilst there were always exceptions, the process of getting an MSV arranged was a matter of co-ordinating all the parting which sometime took longer due to the number of attendees. But, the MSV was usually completed within 4 weeks of the option being selected by the Network Planning Engineer. However, since the Electronic Communications Code 2017 came into law, the MNO’s have pushed Site Providers to accept what they term "Code Rents" which are a fraction of those paid prior to the new legislation coming into force. This, as I have written numerous times before on LinkedIn, has created a portfolio of aggrieved Site Providers and potential Site Providers, not willing to engage in negotiations for an installation on their land or property. The first decision I read yesterday was regarding Hanover Square (https://lnkd.in/eA-s44gR) and it struck me that the Site Provider was approached prior to December 2020 and the case was heard on 6 December 2023. Three years to get an MSV agreed with the costs awarded to the Site Provider in excess of £20,000! The MNO would also have incurred significant costs. We are seeing MSV Agreements are required by Site Providers in most cases and are taking at a minimum, three months to negotiate with some a few years and costing the MNO’s thousands of pounds covering just the Site Providers professional fees, let alone their own. Surely the MNO’s need to smell the coffee and change the way they are dealing with Site Providers to win them back and have Site Providers who will welcome having the installations on the property meaning the networks can be rolled out quickly and easily accessed for maintenance. The Landlord and Tenant relationship has always been key.

MSV agreements for purely visual surveys are, in my opinion, largely unnecessary unless there are specific security or safety issues to consider, but clearly costs are payable to facilitate access. Proceed without such an agreement for an intrusive MSV at your peril: An operator accessed a client owned central London rooftop site to carry out an intrusive MSV and an agreement was put in place to facilitate this.  The works were not carried out satisfactorily, but we have been able to rely on the reinstatement and costs provisions within the MSV agreement to force the operator back to site. It was only because we had a well drafted, consensual, MSV agreement in place that our client has been able to enforce these repair works. Notwithstanding the above, we are now 18 months from the original damage being caused and the Operator has still failed to complete the repairs. All costs for enforcing the Operator’s covenants are recoverable and these continue to rise. LSH’s Telecoms division has standard MSV agreements in place with all major network operators for use on rooftop and greenfield sites.  We do not consider these to be onerous and generally conclude such agreements swiftly. E: Telecoms@lsh.co.uk

I’m excited to share this new blog detailing what the recent FCC NG911 ruling means for both PSAPs and OSPs. There is a lot of work to be done, but the bottom line for OSPs is that if you’re leveraging our solutions, you are on the path to compliance, or may already be compliant! No need to build anything in-house or manage the complexity of every PSAP you deliver calls to.

New telecoms decision... very well written too, providing insight on how the exclusion of EC apparatus from the definition of land came about. I have summarised below in haste so my analysis may not be that reliable (and I am only a surveyor anyway)! As always there will be nuances. Issue 1: Did a lease for apparatus on the roof of a BT telephone exchange confer Code rights? Yes. Issue 2: Did BT serve a valid notice under the lease to bring it to an end? No, because the answer to 1 was yes. Issue 3: Is a break notice essential for the validity of a para 31 notice? No and BT's para 31 notice was valid. The next step is for the parties to agree, or for the Tribunal to decide, whether BT can make out ground (c) or (d) under para 31 on which it relies. This case may have implications for those giving operators rights to install apparatus on other apparatus and not on land, in terms of how the courts will decide whether a structure is apparatus.

New #electroniccommunications Code of Practice. From Ofcom: “The new Code of Practice published today includes amendments to the 2017 Code of Practice, as well as the addition of new elements in line with updates to the Electronic Communications Code. A key new addition is the inclusion of text on the process for resolving disputes that may arise between Operators and Site Providers and specifically, best practice in relation to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures. This text is intended to facilitate the effective resolution of disputes that arise and ensure telecommunications equipment is deployed as quickly and as smoothly as possible.” Links to Ofcom Statement and revised Code of Practice all attached

ECC EWSLETTER JUNE 2024 Read about the following topics in this issue of our newsletter: - CEPT preparation for WRC-27 gets underway with satellite issues in the spotlight As the outcomes of the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC- 23) are incorporated into the Radio Regulations, CEPT has started the preparation for the next update at WRC-27, with an agenda where satellite-related issues take centre stage, writes Doriana Guiducci, ECO Spectrum Expert. - Are you receiving me? Improving equipment performance to prevent interference  Peter Faris, ECO Spectrum Expert, explores recent initiatives from the Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) in defining a new framework for improving resilience of receivers to interference. - Europe takes on the telecoms fraudsters  ECO Expert in Numbering and Networks, Vassil Krastev, examines the most common types of voice and messaging fraud, and the strategies for preventing and responding to them. Read the full ECC Newsletter here https://bit.ly/4c8A7XO

BT fined millions for failing to connect 999 calls BT has been fined £17.5m for a "catastrophic failure" of its emergency call handling service which led to thousands of 999 calls not being connected. The network fault, which lasted for more than 10 hours on 25 June last year, led to 14,000 calls to emergency services failing to connect. Following an investigation into the company which manages the 999 phone system, the regulator Ofcom said that the telecoms giant was "ill-prepared" to respond to the problem and fell "woefully short of its responsibilities". In response, BT admitted that it had fallen short and it was "sincerely sorry". Suzanne Cater, Ofcom’s director of enforcement, said: "Being able to contact the emergency services can mean the difference between life and death, so in the event of any disruption to their networks, providers must be ready to respond quickly and effectively." https://lnkd.in/ehUYJjmm #BT #telecoms #Ofcom #emergencycalls #infrastructure #networks