It gives them the right to enter the building, but the building can charge “a reasonable fee” for things like power/space/cooling.
Shane Ronan > On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:45 PM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE > <l...@6by7.net> wrote: > > Fiber in a building adds 8% to the value of that building. Half-penny > pinching “mah powah” landlords are especially annoying in a cosmic sense - > and just make me want to replace them. > > The telecommunications act of 1934 permits telcos to enter a building with > their equipment. > > I’d upgrade the MPOE do a datacenter with 2N generators and UPS - then upsell > them colo. > > Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE > 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC > CEO > l...@6by7.net > "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the > world.” > > FCC License KJ6FJJ > > Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149. > >>> On Sep 22, 2021, at 9:28 AM, jra...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >> >> A few of the buildings that my firm represents have the local telco’s fiber >> distribution and/or repeater equipment located on the premises. My >> understanding is that when one of these links go down, (we’ve occasionally >> had to interrupt circuit power to do maintenance in a building for one >> reason or another), a local engineering tech always comes running to restore >> the link. The tech has led our maintenance staff to believe that these >> repeaters are an integral part of the local ring, which fits my >> understanding. >> >> When a network operator has equipment located at a third party premises, >> what is the norm for commercial contractual terms regarding the siting of >> that equipment? Any network equipment on site pre-dates my client’s >> ownership of the buildings, and they have no record of any agreements or >> easements governing who is responsible for power, maintenance, liability, >> etc. >> >> My client has no philosophical objection to having the equipment on site, >> but he’s asked why he has had to pay to power and cool this equipment for >> almost 20 years when it serves him no benefit (he is not utilizing that >> company’s services). I figure some of you may be able to give me an insight >> as to what is normal and reasonable. Feel free to contact me directly if >> this message is not suitable for this distribution list. >> >> Appreciate the insight, >> >> >> Jeff Ray >> O: (956) 542-3642 >> C: (956) 592-2019 >> jra...@gmail.com >> >> >> This message has been sent as a part of a discussion between Jeff Ray and >> the intended recipient identified above. Some topics may be sensitive and >> subject to legal privilege, confidentiality, or other non-disclosure >> agreement. Should you receive this message by mistake, we would be most >> grateful if you informed us that the message has been sent to you. In that >> case, we also ask that you delete this message from your mailbox, and do not >> forward or speak of it (or its contents) to anyone else. Thank you for your >> cooperation and understanding. >>
