One of the most important issues facing all wireless carriers is how to achieve rapid deployment of new networks and overcome local opposition to multiple facilities in areas where existing wireless facilities are present. The logical solution is to seek collocation opportunities on existing towers and telecommunications facilities wherever possible.
However, the existing cellular and enhanced specialized mobile radio carriers often are reluctant to allow their cellular competition to collocate on their towers, much less the new personal communications network/personal communications services. Their arguments are:
1. They have a competitive advantage and no desire to give the other company quick access to market.
2. They have interference problems with the collocation applicant’s equipment.
3. Their tower is not structurally capable of holding additional antennas and related equipment.
4. There is no space available in their building for additional equipment nor property within the leased premises for another portable shelter.
5. They have no rights in their lease to sublease to the collocation applicant nor allow them access to the property.
6. The collocation applicant has nothing to offer them in exchange.
However, the emphasis will actually be on competitive advantage for denial of the collocation request.
As many communities around the United States and Canada are requesting or requiring wireless carriers to first seek collocation opportunities, the question remains as to what incentive can be used to overcome these objections from the incumbent carrier.
Let’s look at some of the ways that make this a win-win situation for everyone involved. First, offer the incumbent wireless carrier or tower owner a percentage of their total site development costs (I suggest at least 50 percent). For the incumbent carrier, this translates into cash to build more sites. Large sums of cash up front may offset the competitive advantage objection. The existing wireless carriers are proliferating their networks and with competition approaching they need fast cash to build more sites and switch to digital formats. As an additional incentive, the collocation applicant should offer their new facilities to the incumbent carrier in the future on the same terms.
Second, offer to pay an equitable percentage of the incumbent carrier’s lease rental even if additional rent must be given to the landlord. This too translates into cash to offset rental payments the incumbent carrier is paying throughout their network.
Third, offer to clear interference, tower structural questions and landlord/property issues at the collocation applicant’s expense (you should have these expenses for your own facility anyway).
Fourth, work with the incumbent carrier to clear permitting issues and keep them at their lowest possible level for all parties involved.
These arguments for collocations are applicable to incumbent wireless carriers who are proliferating their existing networks as well as new PCN/PCS carriers.
In addition I would suggest wireless carriers look at municipal properties first for their potential sites. Better to have the municipality as a landlord than an opponent. I also suggest wireless carriers consider “joint applications” for new facilities. This saves time in the permitting process and gives substantial savings in site development costs to each carrier. This allocates additional money toward building more sites.
The financial advantages to collocation and joint site development for all wireless carriers are numerous. Additionally, the public persona for each carrier is enhanced in that community. The community appreciates and remembers your efforts to eliminate multiple facilities, which will then translate in fewer permitting problems.
The customer is not concerned with who has the most towers and ultimately the real differences between all the wireless carriers will be reduced to who can provide the best quality service at the lowest price.